The ArgusBrighton and Hove bus worker sacked after removing drunk (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Brighton and Hove bus worker sacked after removing drunk

The Argus: Nigel Thew and his wife Molly Nigel Thew and his wife Molly

A bus supervisor was sacked from his job after scuffling with a drunk passenger who threatened him with a bottle.

Long-serving Brighton and Hove Bus Company employee Nigel Thew was fired after frogmarching an unruly passenger from a bus filled with school children.

While he recovered from a broken ankle sustained in the incident, Mr Thew was told by his employers he was going to be sacked for his actions.

The 52-year-old bus supervisor claims he has been harshly treated by his employers and denies that he was overly aggressive with the problem passenger.

The supervisor, who had been employed for 17 years, was called to the 27 bus travelling through Brighton after complaints that a passenger was drinking vodka on the bus and verbally abusing schoolchildren at about 4pm on October 24.

After boarding the bus Mr Thew spoke to the passenger and asked him to leave – but was met with verbal abuse.

The passenger then confronted Mr Thew with a vodka bottle which he held in a threatening manner.

Mr Thew, of Coleman Street in Brighton, grabbed the man’s jumper and walked him off the bus.

They both fell and Mr Thew broke his ankle in three places.

Despite his injury he held the man to the floor in Coombe Vale in Saltdean until police came and arrested the passenger.

The customer appeared in court a month later and pleaded guilty to using threatening words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and was fined £37 and ordered to pay costs of £105.

The supervisor was not charged with any offences.

The matter has only now been brought to The Argus’s attention after Mr Thew had exhausted all appeal processes with the bus company.

He said: “Nobody complained about my actions, not even the passenger on the bus.

“The only contact I had from the bus company after the incident was five days later when they said I had to attend a disciplinary meeting.

“This guy threatened to put a bottle in my face, he was holding it down by his side and had his fingers around the neck of the bottle.

“I didn’t even grab him, I just grabbed his jumper and walked him off the bus.

“I protected myself so I didn’t get a bottle in my face.

“I have been doing this role for 14 years and he is not the first person I have had to remove from a bus.”

Martin Harris, managing director of Brighton and Hove Bus Company, said he was unable to comment on individual cases.

He said: “We have thorough procedures for investigating incident of this nature and clear CCTV recordings of what takes place on our buses.

“Such serious decisions would not be taken without clear evidence.

“Issues of data protection and confidentiality prevent me saying more on this case.”

Comments (211)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:54am Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Clearly B&H Buses think it's OK for passengers to threaten staff and abuse school children. The drunk even admitted the offence !!!!!! Shame on you B&H buses - you need more staff like Mr Thew not less.
Clearly B&H Buses think it's OK for passengers to threaten staff and abuse school children. The drunk even admitted the offence !!!!!! Shame on you B&H buses - you need more staff like Mr Thew not less. Fight_Back
  • Score: 336

9:05am Mon 10 Mar 14

Tallywhacker says...

Maybe they should run two buses around at night. One with managers on and the other with Mr Thews on and see which the customers feel safer on.
Maybe they should run two buses around at night. One with managers on and the other with Mr Thews on and see which the customers feel safer on. Tallywhacker
  • Score: 218

9:18am Mon 10 Mar 14

beano mcbean says...

It would appear that Mr Thews was doing his job properly. No surprise that this organisation fired him. Would suggest he checks his spam. There is bound to be a message from a claims company.
It would appear that Mr Thews was doing his job properly. No surprise that this organisation fired him. Would suggest he checks his spam. There is bound to be a message from a claims company. beano mcbean
  • Score: 135

9:22am Mon 10 Mar 14

NickBtn says...

The bus company seem to be scoring quite an own goal here. Opening themselves up to legal action from Mr Thews for unfair dismissal and, as they are saying he did something wrong, from the drunk.

Passengers should be protected from unruly behaviour on buses and Mr Thew was right to get involved. Presumably other supervisors and drivers now will think twice about protecting passengers for fear of losing their jobs too. Is that really helping us to choose to use buses?
The bus company seem to be scoring quite an own goal here. Opening themselves up to legal action from Mr Thews for unfair dismissal and, as they are saying he did something wrong, from the drunk. Passengers should be protected from unruly behaviour on buses and Mr Thew was right to get involved. Presumably other supervisors and drivers now will think twice about protecting passengers for fear of losing their jobs too. Is that really helping us to choose to use buses? NickBtn
  • Score: 195

9:28am Mon 10 Mar 14

tykemison says...

"Martin Harris, managing director of Brighton and Hove Bus Company, said he was unable to comment on individual cases".Well theres a surprise,why are people in privileged positions always allowed to hide behind this cowardly soundbite,Grow a pair Harris and do the right thing,re-instate Mr Thews and award him for his bravery.
"Martin Harris, managing director of Brighton and Hove Bus Company, said he was unable to comment on individual cases".Well theres a surprise,why are people in privileged positions always allowed to hide behind this cowardly soundbite,Grow a pair Harris and do the right thing,re-instate Mr Thews and award him for his bravery. tykemison
  • Score: 175

9:45am Mon 10 Mar 14

spa301 says...

Presumably there is CCTV footage to enable the whole incident to be viewed and judge if he used excessive force?
Presumably there is CCTV footage to enable the whole incident to be viewed and judge if he used excessive force? spa301
  • Score: 78

9:58am Mon 10 Mar 14

made up says...

Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make.
Good luck in what you do next Nigel.
Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make. Good luck in what you do next Nigel. made up
  • Score: 165

10:05am Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

I don't normally support strikes but maybe all the drivers would like to strike for a day. That should soon bring the coward Harris to his senses and the city to a standstill.
I don't normally support strikes but maybe all the drivers would like to strike for a day. That should soon bring the coward Harris to his senses and the city to a standstill. Fight_Back
  • Score: 140

10:14am Mon 10 Mar 14

Andy R says...

Fight_Back wrote:
I don't normally support strikes but maybe all the drivers would like to strike for a day. That should soon bring the coward Harris to his senses and the city to a standstill.
Well yes. Given that Mr Thew will have to find over £1000 to bring an unfair dismissal claim (thanks to Failing Grayling), his workmates are his best hope. They'd certainly have my support.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I don't normally support strikes but maybe all the drivers would like to strike for a day. That should soon bring the coward Harris to his senses and the city to a standstill.[/p][/quote]Well yes. Given that Mr Thew will have to find over £1000 to bring an unfair dismissal claim (thanks to Failing Grayling), his workmates are his best hope. They'd certainly have my support. Andy R
  • Score: 118

10:15am Mon 10 Mar 14

cookie_brighton says...

simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line. cookie_brighton
  • Score: -229

10:20am Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
Not true - you can use reasonable force to protect yourself and others you think are at risk. Here Mr Thew used reasonable force to remove a threat to his own wellbeing and to remove a threat to school children.

I guess at least I now know not to let my children to use B&H buses and will instead ferry them around in my car.
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]Not true - you can use reasonable force to protect yourself and others you think are at risk. Here Mr Thew used reasonable force to remove a threat to his own wellbeing and to remove a threat to school children. I guess at least I now know not to let my children to use B&H buses and will instead ferry them around in my car. Fight_Back
  • Score: 140

10:21am Mon 10 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast.

If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast. If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong. mimseycal
  • Score: 77

10:23am Mon 10 Mar 14

made up says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
Not if he felt threatened by the actions of another. I bet you're the type of person who'd refuse to help if you saw a woman getting beaten up in the street. Some people really need to grow a set and stop blaming their lack of actions in social situations on fear of prosecution.
This was this mans job and he had been sacked for doing it.
If he had done anything criminal then the police were aware of the incident and would have taken action.
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]Not if he felt threatened by the actions of another. I bet you're the type of person who'd refuse to help if you saw a woman getting beaten up in the street. Some people really need to grow a set and stop blaming their lack of actions in social situations on fear of prosecution. This was this mans job and he had been sacked for doing it. If he had done anything criminal then the police were aware of the incident and would have taken action. made up
  • Score: 90

10:26am Mon 10 Mar 14

cookie_brighton says...

made up wrote:
Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make.
Good luck in what you do next Nigel.
in this day and age......we know that if you place an hand on a person .....it is classed.......BY LAW as assault I know that Nigel Thews actions were, in his, and many others eyes, good, we must remember that we cannot go around grabbing people and removing them from anywhere.........sec
urity guards have to be trained and licenced to restrain shoplifters etc....I feel that he is to blame for the position that he is in...............
[quote][p][bold]made up[/bold] wrote: Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make. Good luck in what you do next Nigel.[/p][/quote]in this day and age......we know that if you place an hand on a person .....it is classed.......BY LAW as assault I know that Nigel Thews actions were, in his, and many others eyes, good, we must remember that we cannot go around grabbing people and removing them from anywhere.........sec urity guards have to be trained and licenced to restrain shoplifters etc....I feel that he is to blame for the position that he is in............... cookie_brighton
  • Score: -178

10:28am Mon 10 Mar 14

cookie_brighton says...

mimseycal wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast.

If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.
should be....but are NOT........the law is the law.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast. If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.[/p][/quote]should be....but are NOT........the law is the law. cookie_brighton
  • Score: -102

10:33am Mon 10 Mar 14

cookie_brighton says...

NickBtn wrote:
The bus company seem to be scoring quite an own goal here. Opening themselves up to legal action from Mr Thews for unfair dismissal and, as they are saying he did something wrong, from the drunk.

Passengers should be protected from unruly behaviour on buses and Mr Thew was right to get involved. Presumably other supervisors and drivers now will think twice about protecting passengers for fear of losing their jobs too. Is that really helping us to choose to use buses?
unfair dismissal...how do you come to that conclusion..........
Mr Thews admitted grabbing hold of a member of the public........whethe
r he was drunk or even threatened Mr Thew is not an issue...Mr Thew ADMITTED that he grabbed him.......this is against the policy of the company....gross misconduct.....so explain how it is unfair dismissal........I Laugh at your mention of legal action.
[quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: The bus company seem to be scoring quite an own goal here. Opening themselves up to legal action from Mr Thews for unfair dismissal and, as they are saying he did something wrong, from the drunk. Passengers should be protected from unruly behaviour on buses and Mr Thew was right to get involved. Presumably other supervisors and drivers now will think twice about protecting passengers for fear of losing their jobs too. Is that really helping us to choose to use buses?[/p][/quote]unfair dismissal...how do you come to that conclusion.......... Mr Thews admitted grabbing hold of a member of the public........whethe r he was drunk or even threatened Mr Thew is not an issue...Mr Thew ADMITTED that he grabbed him.......this is against the policy of the company....gross misconduct.....so explain how it is unfair dismissal........I Laugh at your mention of legal action. cookie_brighton
  • Score: -148

10:40am Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast.

If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.
should be....but are NOT........the law is the law.
And the law determined he had done nothing wrong. The drunk on the other hand was convicted.
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast. If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.[/p][/quote]should be....but are NOT........the law is the law.[/p][/quote]And the law determined he had done nothing wrong. The drunk on the other hand was convicted. Fight_Back
  • Score: 107

10:47am Mon 10 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Well if the employees of B&H buses got behind this sacked man who was only doing his job perhaps this bad decision will be overruled.Its quite common these days to see people drinking alcohol on brighton and hove buses i'm sure this is not allowed in in the operators licence.Its a sad state of affairs when the offender gets a minor punishment when this long serving employee gets the sack for quite simply doing a good job.Perhaps the employee's of Brighton and Hove buses should show they have some backbone and support this sacked employee,what would happen if they were attacked and the same thing happened to them ?Perhaps Brighton and Hoves buses have sacked this man so they don't have to pay him compensation for his injuries as something is not quite right.BRIGHTON AND HOVE EMPLOYEE'S GET SOME BACKBONE AND SUPPORT THIS UNFAIRLY SACKED MAN.
Well if the employees of B&H buses got behind this sacked man who was only doing his job perhaps this bad decision will be overruled.Its quite common these days to see people drinking alcohol on brighton and hove buses i'm sure this is not allowed in in the operators licence.Its a sad state of affairs when the offender gets a minor punishment when this long serving employee gets the sack for quite simply doing a good job.Perhaps the employee's of Brighton and Hove buses should show they have some backbone and support this sacked employee,what would happen if they were attacked and the same thing happened to them ?Perhaps Brighton and Hoves buses have sacked this man so they don't have to pay him compensation for his injuries as something is not quite right.BRIGHTON AND HOVE EMPLOYEE'S GET SOME BACKBONE AND SUPPORT THIS UNFAIRLY SACKED MAN. clubrob6
  • Score: 95

10:50am Mon 10 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast.

If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.
should be....but are NOT........the law is the law.
The law is the law but laws have changed in the past where they were found not to fit in with current social conditions.

According to a survey conducted in 1780 or so, the number of those who had the vote in the UK were just under 3% of the entire population. The number of legal voters in Scotland was even smaller. The law changed and now even women have the right to vote.

Further, the law is subject to mitigation. That is why we have courts of law. If it were a simple application, a rule book and a single pronouncement would have sufficed.
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast. If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.[/p][/quote]should be....but are NOT........the law is the law.[/p][/quote]The law is the law but laws have changed in the past where they were found not to fit in with current social conditions. According to a survey conducted in 1780 or so, the number of those who had the vote in the UK were just under 3% of the entire population. The number of legal voters in Scotland was even smaller. The law changed and now even women have the right to vote. Further, the law is subject to mitigation. That is why we have courts of law. If it were a simple application, a rule book and a single pronouncement would have sufficed. mimseycal
  • Score: -13

10:51am Mon 10 Mar 14

Farawaynow says...

cookie_brighton,
what a nasty cowardly little PC (and it does'nt stand for politically correct) **** you are - you are a first class example of what's wrong with the UK.

I do hope that one day you and Martin Harris are having the crap beaten out of you and everyone will just stand around and do nothing because that's exactly what you deserve - now go away and find a PC stone to crawl under, one that's big enough for both of you.

I really hope this man's work mates will start a fund to help him get real meaningful compensation.
cookie_brighton, what a nasty cowardly little PC (and it does'nt stand for politically correct) **** you are - you are a first class example of what's wrong with the UK. I do hope that one day you and Martin Harris are having the crap beaten out of you and everyone will just stand around and do nothing because that's exactly what you deserve - now go away and find a PC stone to crawl under, one that's big enough for both of you. I really hope this man's work mates will start a fund to help him get real meaningful compensation. Farawaynow
  • Score: 71

10:56am Mon 10 Mar 14

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

These days you can't take the law into your own hands and go around wrestling people to the ground even if they are causing a problem.

I feel sorry for the driver as he probably felt he was making the right decision however there is a process that he should have followed and this is not to use force against a passenger.

Given he was with the company for such a long time he would have received training/guidance on how to deal with a situation like this and that would have been to stop the bus and await the police.
These days you can't take the law into your own hands and go around wrestling people to the ground even if they are causing a problem. I feel sorry for the driver as he probably felt he was making the right decision however there is a process that he should have followed and this is not to use force against a passenger. Given he was with the company for such a long time he would have received training/guidance on how to deal with a situation like this and that would have been to stop the bus and await the police. uniteagainstparkingcharges
  • Score: -72

11:00am Mon 10 Mar 14

Saffron says...

Come back Roger French from retirement. I am sure he would have found a different and more sensible way of dealing with this.
Come back Roger French from retirement. I am sure he would have found a different and more sensible way of dealing with this. Saffron
  • Score: 50

11:07am Mon 10 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Oh and just for your information cookie_brighton, the right to protect is acknowledge in the Criminal Law Act 1967. Further that right extends to cover defending your family, your boss or your employee, or a stranger and his or her property.

The only issue would be whether reasonable force was used and the only one who can determine 'reasonable' in those circumstances, is the legal system in the UK.

It seems therefore that the sacking has not been done in accordance with the Law as such but rather in accordance with the rules of a company. A company that is subject to UK law and therefore cannot enforce rules that run counter to UK law.
Oh and just for your information cookie_brighton, the right to protect is acknowledge in the Criminal Law Act 1967. Further that right extends to cover defending your family, your boss or your employee, or a stranger and his or her property. The only issue would be whether reasonable force was used and the only one who can determine 'reasonable' in those circumstances, is the legal system in the UK. It seems therefore that the sacking has not been done in accordance with the Law as such but rather in accordance with the rules of a company. A company that is subject to UK law and therefore cannot enforce rules that run counter to UK law. mimseycal
  • Score: 67

11:08am Mon 10 Mar 14

whatevernext2013 says...

uniteagainstparkingc
harges
wrote:
These days you can't take the law into your own hands and go around wrestling people to the ground even if they are causing a problem.

I feel sorry for the driver as he probably felt he was making the right decision however there is a process that he should have followed and this is not to use force against a passenger.

Given he was with the company for such a long time he would have received training/guidance on how to deal with a situation like this and that would have been to stop the bus and await the police.
there s a good little person learn to read ,before replying
[quote][p][bold]uniteagainstparkingc harges[/bold] wrote: These days you can't take the law into your own hands and go around wrestling people to the ground even if they are causing a problem. I feel sorry for the driver as he probably felt he was making the right decision however there is a process that he should have followed and this is not to use force against a passenger. Given he was with the company for such a long time he would have received training/guidance on how to deal with a situation like this and that would have been to stop the bus and await the police.[/p][/quote]there s a good little person learn to read ,before replying whatevernext2013
  • Score: -17

11:08am Mon 10 Mar 14

tykemison says...

Farawaynow wrote:
cookie_brighton,
what a nasty cowardly little PC (and it does'nt stand for politically correct) **** you are - you are a first class example of what's wrong with the UK.

I do hope that one day you and Martin Harris are having the crap beaten out of you and everyone will just stand around and do nothing because that's exactly what you deserve - now go away and find a PC stone to crawl under, one that's big enough for both of you.

I really hope this man's work mates will start a fund to help him get real meaningful compensation.
Absolutely this,Cookie,your comments sound like those you would expect of someone working in human resources and has their head stuck up their backside.
[quote][p][bold]Farawaynow[/bold] wrote: cookie_brighton, what a nasty cowardly little PC (and it does'nt stand for politically correct) **** you are - you are a first class example of what's wrong with the UK. I do hope that one day you and Martin Harris are having the crap beaten out of you and everyone will just stand around and do nothing because that's exactly what you deserve - now go away and find a PC stone to crawl under, one that's big enough for both of you. I really hope this man's work mates will start a fund to help him get real meaningful compensation.[/p][/quote]Absolutely this,Cookie,your comments sound like those you would expect of someone working in human resources and has their head stuck up their backside. tykemison
  • Score: 43

11:16am Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

I'd like to add a piece of information on this man 'Nigel thew' . I had a run in with this man when I was a child (14 yrs old) that's nearly 10 years ago now. It started like this, I had my drink spiked at a friends house, I felt very peculiar and decided to leave, the bus stop was just across the road . I flagged down the next bus coming, who I felt just thought I was a drunken teenager who had had a bit too much to drink, I remember the bus inspectors arriving in a black car. Nigel being one of them, he was extremely aggressive with me from the start and man handled me on a few occasions during this incident, once getting me by the throat. I hit out at him, and he actually proceeded to take me to court, and stood there in court playing the innocent victim. Unfortunately the incident happened in the bus shelter so wasn't covered by CCTV footage or I'd have no doubt he would have lost his jobs years ago. The way he handled me was way beyond reasonable force, and in fact he had no right to lay his hands on me . I was in a public place at the time, I wasn't on a brighton and hove bus. I can assure you this man is more then capable of becoming aggressive. I think it's well over due losing his job!
I'd like to add a piece of information on this man 'Nigel thew' . I had a run in with this man when I was a child (14 yrs old) that's nearly 10 years ago now. It started like this, I had my drink spiked at a friends house, I felt very peculiar and decided to leave, the bus stop was just across the road . I flagged down the next bus coming, who I felt just thought I was a drunken teenager who had had a bit too much to drink, I remember the bus inspectors arriving in a black car. Nigel being one of them, he was extremely aggressive with me from the start and man handled me on a few occasions during this incident, once getting me by the throat. I hit out at him, and he actually proceeded to take me to court, and stood there in court playing the innocent victim. Unfortunately the incident happened in the bus shelter so wasn't covered by CCTV footage or I'd have no doubt he would have lost his jobs years ago. The way he handled me was way beyond reasonable force, and in fact he had no right to lay his hands on me . I was in a public place at the time, I wasn't on a brighton and hove bus. I can assure you this man is more then capable of becoming aggressive. I think it's well over due losing his job! Charlotte22
  • Score: -27

11:27am Mon 10 Mar 14

Poem58 says...

What awful publicity for the Brighton and Hove Bus Company - they should do the right thing and reinstate Mr Thew immediately.

Call me cynical if you like but could the company in question here have seen this as an opportunity to offload a long serving employee thus avoiding having to honour his pension payments at retirement?
What awful publicity for the Brighton and Hove Bus Company - they should do the right thing and reinstate Mr Thew immediately. Call me cynical if you like but could the company in question here have seen this as an opportunity to offload a long serving employee thus avoiding having to honour his pension payments at retirement? Poem58
  • Score: 34

11:32am Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
I'd like to add a piece of information on this man 'Nigel thew' . I had a run in with this man when I was a child (14 yrs old) that's nearly 10 years ago now. It started like this, I had my drink spiked at a friends house, I felt very peculiar and decided to leave, the bus stop was just across the road . I flagged down the next bus coming, who I felt just thought I was a drunken teenager who had had a bit too much to drink, I remember the bus inspectors arriving in a black car. Nigel being one of them, he was extremely aggressive with me from the start and man handled me on a few occasions during this incident, once getting me by the throat. I hit out at him, and he actually proceeded to take me to court, and stood there in court playing the innocent victim. Unfortunately the incident happened in the bus shelter so wasn't covered by CCTV footage or I'd have no doubt he would have lost his jobs years ago. The way he handled me was way beyond reasonable force, and in fact he had no right to lay his hands on me . I was in a public place at the time, I wasn't on a brighton and hove bus. I can assure you this man is more then capable of becoming aggressive. I think it's well over due losing his job!
Strangely you don't mention what your behaviour was like ? How were they to tell your drink had been spiked ? Was it an alcoholic drink by chance ?
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: I'd like to add a piece of information on this man 'Nigel thew' . I had a run in with this man when I was a child (14 yrs old) that's nearly 10 years ago now. It started like this, I had my drink spiked at a friends house, I felt very peculiar and decided to leave, the bus stop was just across the road . I flagged down the next bus coming, who I felt just thought I was a drunken teenager who had had a bit too much to drink, I remember the bus inspectors arriving in a black car. Nigel being one of them, he was extremely aggressive with me from the start and man handled me on a few occasions during this incident, once getting me by the throat. I hit out at him, and he actually proceeded to take me to court, and stood there in court playing the innocent victim. Unfortunately the incident happened in the bus shelter so wasn't covered by CCTV footage or I'd have no doubt he would have lost his jobs years ago. The way he handled me was way beyond reasonable force, and in fact he had no right to lay his hands on me . I was in a public place at the time, I wasn't on a brighton and hove bus. I can assure you this man is more then capable of becoming aggressive. I think it's well over due losing his job![/p][/quote]Strangely you don't mention what your behaviour was like ? How were they to tell your drink had been spiked ? Was it an alcoholic drink by chance ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 30

11:36am Mon 10 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
I'd like to add a piece of information on this man 'Nigel thew' . I had a run in with this man when I was a child (14 yrs old) that's nearly 10 years ago now. It started like this, I had my drink spiked at a friends house, I felt very peculiar and decided to leave, the bus stop was just across the road . I flagged down the next bus coming, who I felt just thought I was a drunken teenager who had had a bit too much to drink, I remember the bus inspectors arriving in a black car. Nigel being one of them, he was extremely aggressive with me from the start and man handled me on a few occasions during this incident, once getting me by the throat. I hit out at him, and he actually proceeded to take me to court, and stood there in court playing the innocent victim. Unfortunately the incident happened in the bus shelter so wasn't covered by CCTV footage or I'd have no doubt he would have lost his jobs years ago. The way he handled me was way beyond reasonable force, and in fact he had no right to lay his hands on me . I was in a public place at the time, I wasn't on a brighton and hove bus. I can assure you this man is more then capable of becoming aggressive. I think it's well over due losing his job!
This is really not the forum for airing personal grievances.
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: I'd like to add a piece of information on this man 'Nigel thew' . I had a run in with this man when I was a child (14 yrs old) that's nearly 10 years ago now. It started like this, I had my drink spiked at a friends house, I felt very peculiar and decided to leave, the bus stop was just across the road . I flagged down the next bus coming, who I felt just thought I was a drunken teenager who had had a bit too much to drink, I remember the bus inspectors arriving in a black car. Nigel being one of them, he was extremely aggressive with me from the start and man handled me on a few occasions during this incident, once getting me by the throat. I hit out at him, and he actually proceeded to take me to court, and stood there in court playing the innocent victim. Unfortunately the incident happened in the bus shelter so wasn't covered by CCTV footage or I'd have no doubt he would have lost his jobs years ago. The way he handled me was way beyond reasonable force, and in fact he had no right to lay his hands on me . I was in a public place at the time, I wasn't on a brighton and hove bus. I can assure you this man is more then capable of becoming aggressive. I think it's well over due losing his job![/p][/quote]This is really not the forum for airing personal grievances. mimseycal
  • Score: 24

11:38am Mon 10 Mar 14

Durango_Splubb says...

It seems that the CCTV cameras on board the bus show something that the bus company are keeping secret and this is exactly the sort of incident the cameras were installed for! What could the vids show that has led the bus company to sack Mr Nigel Thew?

What could these vids show that was not witnessed by the other passengers & driver?

“Such serious decisions would not be taken without clear evidence.
“Issues of data protection and confidentiality prevent me saying more on this case.”

This is most definitely NOT the sort of incident that the company should use to hide evidence!

What are the company hiding and why?
It seems that the CCTV cameras on board the bus show something that the bus company are keeping secret and this is exactly the sort of incident the cameras were installed for! What could the vids show that has led the bus company to sack Mr Nigel Thew? What could these vids show that was not witnessed by the other passengers & driver? “Such serious decisions would not be taken without clear evidence. “Issues of data protection and confidentiality prevent me saying more on this case.” This is most definitely NOT the sort of incident that the company should use to hide evidence! What are the company hiding and why? Durango_Splubb
  • Score: 27

11:39am Mon 10 Mar 14

Pebbles says...

Interesting to see the views from others on this.

The first impression I had was that this chap was harshly dealt with by the company. I also took on board the comments of others who were aiming their thoughts at the management.

Then we see the last post by Charlotte22. Of course we have to take such a post on face value and presume it is based on facts.

So, balancing up what we have been provided, which may or may not be the full story but we have to work with what has been provided:

1: The CCTV evidence that apparantly determined the outcome

2:The last post by Charlotte22

Based on this one may have to consider that perhaps the management may have made the correct decision here.

Such a decision is not normally made without solid facts as the possibility of a future claim agains the company would have been taken into consideration.

Furthermore, it is quite common for a large company to have legal insurance whereby legal advice is given on possible courses of actions and the relevent consequences.

If a course of action is decided on then it is usually backed by an insurance endemnity which will cover any future monatory losses.

It would certainly be interesting to see the CCTV evidence which would more than likely fill in the gaps.
Interesting to see the views from others on this. The first impression I had was that this chap was harshly dealt with by the company. I also took on board the comments of others who were aiming their thoughts at the management. Then we see the last post by Charlotte22. Of course we have to take such a post on face value and presume it is based on facts. So, balancing up what we have been provided, which may or may not be the full story but we have to work with what has been provided: 1: The CCTV evidence that apparantly determined the outcome 2:The last post by Charlotte22 Based on this one may have to consider that perhaps the management may have made the correct decision here. Such a decision is not normally made without solid facts as the possibility of a future claim agains the company would have been taken into consideration. Furthermore, it is quite common for a large company to have legal insurance whereby legal advice is given on possible courses of actions and the relevent consequences. If a course of action is decided on then it is usually backed by an insurance endemnity which will cover any future monatory losses. It would certainly be interesting to see the CCTV evidence which would more than likely fill in the gaps. Pebbles
  • Score: 19

11:41am Mon 10 Mar 14

Yasmeena says...

I travel on the 27 quite a lot and would be happy for Mr Thew to be on my bus. This man was protecting schoolchildren and other passengers. He was doing his job. The police did not bring any charges against him. I suggest he sues for unlawful dismissal and also for his injury that was caused by another. There are solicitor claims offices who offer no win no fee. Good luck Mr Thew
I travel on the 27 quite a lot and would be happy for Mr Thew to be on my bus. This man was protecting schoolchildren and other passengers. He was doing his job. The police did not bring any charges against him. I suggest he sues for unlawful dismissal and also for his injury that was caused by another. There are solicitor claims offices who offer no win no fee. Good luck Mr Thew Yasmeena
  • Score: 45

11:42am Mon 10 Mar 14

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

whatevernext2013 wrote:
uniteagainstparkingc

harges
wrote:
These days you can't take the law into your own hands and go around wrestling people to the ground even if they are causing a problem.

I feel sorry for the driver as he probably felt he was making the right decision however there is a process that he should have followed and this is not to use force against a passenger.

Given he was with the company for such a long time he would have received training/guidance on how to deal with a situation like this and that would have been to stop the bus and await the police.
there s a good little person learn to read ,before replying
I read the one sided article and stand by my comment.
[quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uniteagainstparkingc harges[/bold] wrote: These days you can't take the law into your own hands and go around wrestling people to the ground even if they are causing a problem. I feel sorry for the driver as he probably felt he was making the right decision however there is a process that he should have followed and this is not to use force against a passenger. Given he was with the company for such a long time he would have received training/guidance on how to deal with a situation like this and that would have been to stop the bus and await the police.[/p][/quote]there s a good little person learn to read ,before replying[/p][/quote]I read the one sided article and stand by my comment. uniteagainstparkingcharges
  • Score: -13

11:42am Mon 10 Mar 14

whatevernext2013 says...

Fight_Back wrote:
I don't normally support strikes but maybe all the drivers would like to strike for a day. That should soon bring the coward Harris to his senses and the city to a standstill.
it will never happen
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I don't normally support strikes but maybe all the drivers would like to strike for a day. That should soon bring the coward Harris to his senses and the city to a standstill.[/p][/quote]it will never happen whatevernext2013
  • Score: 1

11:50am Mon 10 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Pebbles wrote:
Interesting to see the views from others on this.

The first impression I had was that this chap was harshly dealt with by the company. I also took on board the comments of others who were aiming their thoughts at the management.

Then we see the last post by Charlotte22. Of course we have to take such a post on face value and presume it is based on facts.

So, balancing up what we have been provided, which may or may not be the full story but we have to work with what has been provided:

1: The CCTV evidence that apparantly determined the outcome

2:The last post by Charlotte22

Based on this one may have to consider that perhaps the management may have made the correct decision here.

Such a decision is not normally made without solid facts as the possibility of a future claim agains the company would have been taken into consideration.

Furthermore, it is quite common for a large company to have legal insurance whereby legal advice is given on possible courses of actions and the relevent consequences.

If a course of action is decided on then it is usually backed by an insurance endemnity which will cover any future monatory losses.

It would certainly be interesting to see the CCTV evidence which would more than likely fill in the gaps.
The incident Charlotte22 relates, was aired in a court of law, Mr Thew was not held as having acted either unreasonably or against the law. Further the incidents are 10 years apart therefore, consider both two facts as mentioned, they can have no bearing on this matter.
[quote][p][bold]Pebbles[/bold] wrote: Interesting to see the views from others on this. The first impression I had was that this chap was harshly dealt with by the company. I also took on board the comments of others who were aiming their thoughts at the management. Then we see the last post by Charlotte22. Of course we have to take such a post on face value and presume it is based on facts. So, balancing up what we have been provided, which may or may not be the full story but we have to work with what has been provided: 1: The CCTV evidence that apparantly determined the outcome 2:The last post by Charlotte22 Based on this one may have to consider that perhaps the management may have made the correct decision here. Such a decision is not normally made without solid facts as the possibility of a future claim agains the company would have been taken into consideration. Furthermore, it is quite common for a large company to have legal insurance whereby legal advice is given on possible courses of actions and the relevent consequences. If a course of action is decided on then it is usually backed by an insurance endemnity which will cover any future monatory losses. It would certainly be interesting to see the CCTV evidence which would more than likely fill in the gaps.[/p][/quote]The incident Charlotte22 relates, was aired in a court of law, Mr Thew was not held as having acted either unreasonably or against the law. Further the incidents are 10 years apart therefore, consider both two facts as mentioned, they can have no bearing on this matter. mimseycal
  • Score: 22

11:51am Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

In response the the comment from fight back, no it was not an alcoholic drink. At the time of this incident I was very confused and emotional, as you can imagine. Nigel had no right to man handle me the way he did. I was a child at the time, and he towered above me. Nothing more then a nasty piece of work. Maybe he would benefit from an anger management course.
In response the the comment from fight back, no it was not an alcoholic drink. At the time of this incident I was very confused and emotional, as you can imagine. Nigel had no right to man handle me the way he did. I was a child at the time, and he towered above me. Nothing more then a nasty piece of work. Maybe he would benefit from an anger management course. Charlotte22
  • Score: -25

11:57am Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
In response the the comment from fight back, no it was not an alcoholic drink. At the time of this incident I was very confused and emotional, as you can imagine. Nigel had no right to man handle me the way he did. I was a child at the time, and he towered above me. Nothing more then a nasty piece of work. Maybe he would benefit from an anger management course.
I refer you to the post above .... it would appear the court decided Mr Thew wasn't in the wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: In response the the comment from fight back, no it was not an alcoholic drink. At the time of this incident I was very confused and emotional, as you can imagine. Nigel had no right to man handle me the way he did. I was a child at the time, and he towered above me. Nothing more then a nasty piece of work. Maybe he would benefit from an anger management course.[/p][/quote]I refer you to the post above .... it would appear the court decided Mr Thew wasn't in the wrong. Fight_Back
  • Score: 27

11:57am Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

Mimseycal In response to your comment does it matter what the time frame between incidents was. This man clearly hasn't changed his aggressive ways.
Mimseycal In response to your comment does it matter what the time frame between incidents was. This man clearly hasn't changed his aggressive ways. Charlotte22
  • Score: -21

12:01pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

Fight back. Your information is false. Mr threw proceeded to take me to court for hitting out at him when he got me around my neck, I could not make a counter allegation until the current court case was over. He was not tried in a court, oh how I wish he was. So yes he was never tried over this matter, that doesn't mean he was not guilty. I didn't take the matter further, after it took nearly a year for the initial court case to be finalised, at that time I was sitting my G.C.S.E 'S
Fight back. Your information is false. Mr threw proceeded to take me to court for hitting out at him when he got me around my neck, I could not make a counter allegation until the current court case was over. He was not tried in a court, oh how I wish he was. So yes he was never tried over this matter, that doesn't mean he was not guilty. I didn't take the matter further, after it took nearly a year for the initial court case to be finalised, at that time I was sitting my G.C.S.E 'S Charlotte22
  • Score: -23

12:02pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Brighton Bill says...

Brighton & Hove Bus Co you are absolutely pathetic, get behind your workers, you should be made to feel safe on a Bus and at least he stood up to the drunk, come on the Drivers Union get involved and stand up for your member, he should get a medal, you need employees like him. Shame on you. Brighton & Hove Bus Co. Brighton Bill in Bradford West Yorkshire.
Brighton & Hove Bus Co you are absolutely pathetic, get behind your workers, you should be made to feel safe on a Bus and at least he stood up to the drunk, come on the Drivers Union get involved and stand up for your member, he should get a medal, you need employees like him. Shame on you. Brighton & Hove Bus Co. Brighton Bill in Bradford West Yorkshire. Brighton Bill
  • Score: 25

12:08pm Mon 10 Mar 14

whatevernext2013 says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
I'd like to add a piece of information on this man 'Nigel thew' . I had a run in with this man when I was a child (14 yrs old) that's nearly 10 years ago now. It started like this, I had my drink spiked at a friends house, I felt very peculiar and decided to leave, the bus stop was just across the road . I flagged down the next bus coming, who I felt just thought I was a drunken teenager who had had a bit too much to drink, I remember the bus inspectors arriving in a black car. Nigel being one of them, he was extremely aggressive with me from the start and man handled me on a few occasions during this incident, once getting me by the throat. I hit out at him, and he actually proceeded to take me to court, and stood there in court playing the innocent victim. Unfortunately the incident happened in the bus shelter so wasn't covered by CCTV footage or I'd have no doubt he would have lost his jobs years ago. The way he handled me was way beyond reasonable force, and in fact he had no right to lay his hands on me . I was in a public place at the time, I wasn't on a brighton and hove bus. I can assure you this man is more then capable of becoming aggressive. I think it's well over due losing his job!
now one might that this as more truthful ,but as the buses have cctv cameras both inside and outside so if there was an assault it would have been picked up in the bus shelter ,its a shame people make up stories to make others look bad
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: I'd like to add a piece of information on this man 'Nigel thew' . I had a run in with this man when I was a child (14 yrs old) that's nearly 10 years ago now. It started like this, I had my drink spiked at a friends house, I felt very peculiar and decided to leave, the bus stop was just across the road . I flagged down the next bus coming, who I felt just thought I was a drunken teenager who had had a bit too much to drink, I remember the bus inspectors arriving in a black car. Nigel being one of them, he was extremely aggressive with me from the start and man handled me on a few occasions during this incident, once getting me by the throat. I hit out at him, and he actually proceeded to take me to court, and stood there in court playing the innocent victim. Unfortunately the incident happened in the bus shelter so wasn't covered by CCTV footage or I'd have no doubt he would have lost his jobs years ago. The way he handled me was way beyond reasonable force, and in fact he had no right to lay his hands on me . I was in a public place at the time, I wasn't on a brighton and hove bus. I can assure you this man is more then capable of becoming aggressive. I think it's well over due losing his job![/p][/quote]now one might that this as more truthful ,but as the buses have cctv cameras both inside and outside so if there was an assault it would have been picked up in the bus shelter ,its a shame people make up stories to make others look bad whatevernext2013
  • Score: 1

12:08pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Andy R says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Charlotte22 wrote:
In response the the comment from fight back, no it was not an alcoholic drink. At the time of this incident I was very confused and emotional, as you can imagine. Nigel had no right to man handle me the way he did. I was a child at the time, and he towered above me. Nothing more then a nasty piece of work. Maybe he would benefit from an anger management course.
I refer you to the post above .... it would appear the court decided Mr Thew wasn't in the wrong.
But it doesn't necessarily matter what a court decides. It's a myth that just because a court decides that certain behaviour is not criminal, that this means that the employer won't nevertheless regard that behaviour as misconduct. Being persistently late for work isn't a crime, but it will eventually get you sacked.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: In response the the comment from fight back, no it was not an alcoholic drink. At the time of this incident I was very confused and emotional, as you can imagine. Nigel had no right to man handle me the way he did. I was a child at the time, and he towered above me. Nothing more then a nasty piece of work. Maybe he would benefit from an anger management course.[/p][/quote]I refer you to the post above .... it would appear the court decided Mr Thew wasn't in the wrong.[/p][/quote]But it doesn't necessarily matter what a court decides. It's a myth that just because a court decides that certain behaviour is not criminal, that this means that the employer won't nevertheless regard that behaviour as misconduct. Being persistently late for work isn't a crime, but it will eventually get you sacked. Andy R
  • Score: -2

12:13pm Mon 10 Mar 14

s&k says...

Reinstate him and give him a reward for bravely standing up to an idiot.
Reinstate him and give him a reward for bravely standing up to an idiot. s&k
  • Score: 22

12:18pm Mon 10 Mar 14

biker brighton says...

i worked there years ago renember nigel good guy .i got spat at one day and was told by my manager what do you expect in this job told me to carry on get over it bad place to work for
i worked there years ago renember nigel good guy .i got spat at one day and was told by my manager what do you expect in this job told me to carry on get over it bad place to work for biker brighton
  • Score: 29

12:19pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Brighton Bill says...

s&k wrote:
Reinstate him and give him a reward for bravely standing up to an idiot.
Well said, let's get a petition going.
[quote][p][bold]s&k[/bold] wrote: Reinstate him and give him a reward for bravely standing up to an idiot.[/p][/quote]Well said, let's get a petition going. Brighton Bill
  • Score: 16

12:21pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

This incident was 10 years ago, the police asked if there was CCTV and the bus company said there was not. People are quick to read what's in the media and believe it too. Ask yourself this, the company would not just sack him for dealing with a drunk in a reasonable manner. So something went on, no doubt he was forceful and overly aggressive like he was with me. I don't have to explain myself to any of the idiots that wish to give me abuse. I myself and Nigel thew are 2 people who know what happened that night, and I'm sure he's reading these comments not expecting to hear from Me. Well I never forgot the way he handled me when I was in a vulnerable situation. Let's hope none of your children find their selves in a similar situation to me , and someone like mr thew comes along and man handles them.
This incident was 10 years ago, the police asked if there was CCTV and the bus company said there was not. People are quick to read what's in the media and believe it too. Ask yourself this, the company would not just sack him for dealing with a drunk in a reasonable manner. So something went on, no doubt he was forceful and overly aggressive like he was with me. I don't have to explain myself to any of the idiots that wish to give me abuse. I myself and Nigel thew are 2 people who know what happened that night, and I'm sure he's reading these comments not expecting to hear from Me. Well I never forgot the way he handled me when I was in a vulnerable situation. Let's hope none of your children find their selves in a similar situation to me , and someone like mr thew comes along and man handles them. Charlotte22
  • Score: -6

12:25pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Quiterie says...

I don't know whether this guy has been unfairly dismissed or not.

What I do know is that we're only getting one side of the story.

The CCTV evidence is crucial in this case. The Appeals panels had access to this evidence whereas we don't.

I'm not a fan of Brighton and Hove Buses at all, but we have no evidence that this guy has been harshly treated.

Perhaps he's already had warnings regarding using excessive force and this was the final straw. As I say we're only getting one side of the story.
I don't know whether this guy has been unfairly dismissed or not. What I do know is that we're only getting one side of the story. The CCTV evidence is crucial in this case. The Appeals panels had access to this evidence whereas we don't. I'm not a fan of Brighton and Hove Buses at all, but we have no evidence that this guy has been harshly treated. Perhaps he's already had warnings regarding using excessive force and this was the final straw. As I say we're only getting one side of the story. Quiterie
  • Score: 13

12:26pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

Good luck with the petition, all the good it's going to do. This man shouldn't be working with the public, he'd be better placed working as prison officer or something along them lines. Nothing more then a bully
Good luck with the petition, all the good it's going to do. This man shouldn't be working with the public, he'd be better placed working as prison officer or something along them lines. Nothing more then a bully Charlotte22
  • Score: -26

12:27pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Lady Smith says...

clubrob6 wrote:
Well if the employees of B&H buses got behind this sacked man who was only doing his job perhaps this bad decision will be overruled.Its quite common these days to see people drinking alcohol on brighton and hove buses i'm sure this is not allowed in in the operators licence.Its a sad state of affairs when the offender gets a minor punishment when this long serving employee gets the sack for quite simply doing a good job.Perhaps the employee's of Brighton and Hove buses should show they have some backbone and support this sacked employee,what would happen if they were attacked and the same thing happened to them ?Perhaps Brighton and Hoves buses have sacked this man so they don't have to pay him compensation for his injuries as something is not quite right.BRIGHTON AND HOVE EMPLOYEE'S GET SOME BACKBONE AND SUPPORT THIS UNFAIRLY SACKED MAN.
All the B&H buses have notices that state quite uncategorically that no alcohol is allowed on them. So, even without the abuse, this passenger was contravening the company's rules, which would in itself mean the driver was correct in removing him from the bus. However, and yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing - it might have been better for him to radio in for police attendance and let them deal with it.
What I find very odd that, though, the drunken abusive git was later convicted on several charges, while at the time of the incident, the driver was not charged with anything. And yet now he's been sacked.
I feel that there's an element to this story that we're not being told.
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: Well if the employees of B&H buses got behind this sacked man who was only doing his job perhaps this bad decision will be overruled.Its quite common these days to see people drinking alcohol on brighton and hove buses i'm sure this is not allowed in in the operators licence.Its a sad state of affairs when the offender gets a minor punishment when this long serving employee gets the sack for quite simply doing a good job.Perhaps the employee's of Brighton and Hove buses should show they have some backbone and support this sacked employee,what would happen if they were attacked and the same thing happened to them ?Perhaps Brighton and Hoves buses have sacked this man so they don't have to pay him compensation for his injuries as something is not quite right.BRIGHTON AND HOVE EMPLOYEE'S GET SOME BACKBONE AND SUPPORT THIS UNFAIRLY SACKED MAN.[/p][/quote]All the B&H buses have notices that state quite uncategorically that no alcohol is allowed on them. So, even without the abuse, this passenger was contravening the company's rules, which would in itself mean the driver was correct in removing him from the bus. However, and yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing - it might have been better for him to radio in for police attendance and let them deal with it. What I find very odd that, though, the drunken abusive git was later convicted on several charges, while at the time of the incident, the driver was not charged with anything. And yet now he's been sacked. I feel that there's an element to this story that we're not being told. Lady Smith
  • Score: 18

12:39pm Mon 10 Mar 14

All 9 of me says...

Nigel the 'patriot ' appears to be quite proud to tell his Facebook friends that he is appearing today in " the argue "........
Nigel the 'patriot ' appears to be quite proud to tell his Facebook friends that he is appearing today in " the argue "........ All 9 of me
  • Score: 4

12:39pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mthew says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
Yes everyone is entitled to the opinion you have no idea cookie brighton, what my husband was faced with as you weren't there and if you had been i hope you wouldn't have stood by and done nothing.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so..
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]Yes everyone is entitled to the opinion you have no idea cookie brighton, what my husband was faced with as you weren't there and if you had been i hope you wouldn't have stood by and done nothing.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so.. mthew
  • Score: 15

12:45pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mthew says...

mimseycal wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast.

If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.
Yes everyone is entitled to the opinion you have no idea mimesycal, what my husband was faced with as you weren't there and if you had been i hope you wouldn't have stood by and done nothing.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so.. bear in mind that no cctv is ever looked at by B and H under normal circumstances, normally supervisors just produce a report, but for B and H to treat someone in this way and not even contacting staff once they have been injured as thats what B and H failed to do is an absolute outcry....
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast. If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.[/p][/quote]Yes everyone is entitled to the opinion you have no idea mimesycal, what my husband was faced with as you weren't there and if you had been i hope you wouldn't have stood by and done nothing.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so.. bear in mind that no cctv is ever looked at by B and H under normal circumstances, normally supervisors just produce a report, but for B and H to treat someone in this way and not even contacting staff once they have been injured as thats what B and H failed to do is an absolute outcry.... mthew
  • Score: 15

12:47pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Quiterie says...

mthew wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
Yes everyone is entitled to the opinion you have no idea cookie brighton, what my husband was faced with as you weren't there and if you had been i hope you wouldn't have stood by and done nothing.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so..
Just out of interest can you tell us if your husband has received any previous warnings for using excessive force during the course of his duties? And if so how many?
[quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]Yes everyone is entitled to the opinion you have no idea cookie brighton, what my husband was faced with as you weren't there and if you had been i hope you wouldn't have stood by and done nothing.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so..[/p][/quote]Just out of interest can you tell us if your husband has received any previous warnings for using excessive force during the course of his duties? And if so how many? Quiterie
  • Score: 16

12:49pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

mthew wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast.

If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.
Yes everyone is entitled to the opinion you have no idea mimesycal, what my husband was faced with as you weren't there and if you had been i hope you wouldn't have stood by and done nothing.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so.. bear in mind that no cctv is ever looked at by B and H under normal circumstances, normally supervisors just produce a report, but for B and H to treat someone in this way and not even contacting staff once they have been injured as thats what B and H failed to do is an absolute outcry....
I think you misunderstood my comment mthew. I am actually behind your husband in this instance.
[quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast. If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.[/p][/quote]Yes everyone is entitled to the opinion you have no idea mimesycal, what my husband was faced with as you weren't there and if you had been i hope you wouldn't have stood by and done nothing.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so.. bear in mind that no cctv is ever looked at by B and H under normal circumstances, normally supervisors just produce a report, but for B and H to treat someone in this way and not even contacting staff once they have been injured as thats what B and H failed to do is an absolute outcry....[/p][/quote]I think you misunderstood my comment mthew. I am actually behind your husband in this instance. mimseycal
  • Score: 6

12:49pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Andy R wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Charlotte22 wrote:
In response the the comment from fight back, no it was not an alcoholic drink. At the time of this incident I was very confused and emotional, as you can imagine. Nigel had no right to man handle me the way he did. I was a child at the time, and he towered above me. Nothing more then a nasty piece of work. Maybe he would benefit from an anger management course.
I refer you to the post above .... it would appear the court decided Mr Thew wasn't in the wrong.
But it doesn't necessarily matter what a court decides. It's a myth that just because a court decides that certain behaviour is not criminal, that this means that the employer won't nevertheless regard that behaviour as misconduct. Being persistently late for work isn't a crime, but it will eventually get you sacked.
I was talking about Charlotte's case not the current one.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: In response the the comment from fight back, no it was not an alcoholic drink. At the time of this incident I was very confused and emotional, as you can imagine. Nigel had no right to man handle me the way he did. I was a child at the time, and he towered above me. Nothing more then a nasty piece of work. Maybe he would benefit from an anger management course.[/p][/quote]I refer you to the post above .... it would appear the court decided Mr Thew wasn't in the wrong.[/p][/quote]But it doesn't necessarily matter what a court decides. It's a myth that just because a court decides that certain behaviour is not criminal, that this means that the employer won't nevertheless regard that behaviour as misconduct. Being persistently late for work isn't a crime, but it will eventually get you sacked.[/p][/quote]I was talking about Charlotte's case not the current one. Fight_Back
  • Score: 2

12:53pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mthew says...

uniteagainstparkingc
harges
wrote:
These days you can't take the law into your own hands and go around wrestling people to the ground even if they are causing a problem.

I feel sorry for the driver as he probably felt he was making the right decision however there is a process that he should have followed and this is not to use force against a passenger.

Given he was with the company for such a long time he would have received training/guidance on how to deal with a situation like this and that would have been to stop the bus and await the police.
My husband wasnt the driver, he was the supervisor that had been sent to this incident by the company and asked to deal with it, as he was sent on his own, with no back up and the company knew the situation was volatile, he dealt with it the best way he could. Firstly he didnt wrestle anyone to the ground, he was just doing his job and trying to defend himself and protect others as well as preventing other school children from being verbally abused and a female bus driver.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so..
[quote][p][bold]uniteagainstparkingc harges[/bold] wrote: These days you can't take the law into your own hands and go around wrestling people to the ground even if they are causing a problem. I feel sorry for the driver as he probably felt he was making the right decision however there is a process that he should have followed and this is not to use force against a passenger. Given he was with the company for such a long time he would have received training/guidance on how to deal with a situation like this and that would have been to stop the bus and await the police.[/p][/quote]My husband wasnt the driver, he was the supervisor that had been sent to this incident by the company and asked to deal with it, as he was sent on his own, with no back up and the company knew the situation was volatile, he dealt with it the best way he could. Firstly he didnt wrestle anyone to the ground, he was just doing his job and trying to defend himself and protect others as well as preventing other school children from being verbally abused and a female bus driver.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so.. mthew
  • Score: 19

12:54pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

I'm a great believer in karma. I don't feel bed for him at all, like I'm sure he didn't when he laid his hands on me, I will bet my last gold nugget he's been warned about this sort of behaviour before, and that's the true reason he lost his job
I'm a great believer in karma. I don't feel bed for him at all, like I'm sure he didn't when he laid his hands on me, I will bet my last gold nugget he's been warned about this sort of behaviour before, and that's the true reason he lost his job Charlotte22
  • Score: -10

12:56pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
Mimseycal In response to your comment does it matter what the time frame between incidents was. This man clearly hasn't changed his aggressive ways.
Except that specifically with regards to the incident involving the 14 year old you, the court did not find the Mr Thew had acted irresponsibly, aggressively or unreasonably.

Therefore to expect us to refer to it in the light of this incident is nothing short of expecting us to act on your personal sense of grievance.
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: Mimseycal In response to your comment does it matter what the time frame between incidents was. This man clearly hasn't changed his aggressive ways.[/p][/quote]Except that specifically with regards to the incident involving the 14 year old you, the court did not find the Mr Thew had acted irresponsibly, aggressively or unreasonably. Therefore to expect us to refer to it in the light of this incident is nothing short of expecting us to act on your personal sense of grievance. mimseycal
  • Score: 11

12:56pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

If the situation was volatile why not sent the police instead of your husband. He's not the law and shouldn't go around taking it into his own hands!!!!
If the situation was volatile why not sent the police instead of your husband. He's not the law and shouldn't go around taking it into his own hands!!!! Charlotte22
  • Score: -12

12:58pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mthew says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
Fight back. Your information is false. Mr threw proceeded to take me to court for hitting out at him when he got me around my neck, I could not make a counter allegation until the current court case was over. He was not tried in a court, oh how I wish he was. So yes he was never tried over this matter, that doesn't mean he was not guilty. I didn't take the matter further, after it took nearly a year for the initial court case to be finalised, at that time I was sitting my G.C.S.E 'S
surely if you had been sitting you GCSE's you should have been at home at the age of 14, my husband has never taken you to court, tell the turth
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: Fight back. Your information is false. Mr threw proceeded to take me to court for hitting out at him when he got me around my neck, I could not make a counter allegation until the current court case was over. He was not tried in a court, oh how I wish he was. So yes he was never tried over this matter, that doesn't mean he was not guilty. I didn't take the matter further, after it took nearly a year for the initial court case to be finalised, at that time I was sitting my G.C.S.E 'S[/p][/quote]surely if you had been sitting you GCSE's you should have been at home at the age of 14, my husband has never taken you to court, tell the turth mthew
  • Score: 12

1:04pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mthew says...

Quiterie wrote:
mthew wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
Yes everyone is entitled to the opinion you have no idea cookie brighton, what my husband was faced with as you weren't there and if you had been i hope you wouldn't have stood by and done nothing.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so..
Just out of interest can you tell us if your husband has received any previous warnings for using excessive force during the course of his duties? And if so how many?
no he hasnt ever received any previous warnings even thiugh he has knives waved at him and guns pointed at him previously all in the course of his job..... and he had a clean work record just for your info...and would you expect to be hung out to dry and not be conatcted by any management for over 5 days after coming out of hospital.....and then only to be served with a "we dont care whats happend to you but we are going to sack you" attitude........ i think not.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]Yes everyone is entitled to the opinion you have no idea cookie brighton, what my husband was faced with as you weren't there and if you had been i hope you wouldn't have stood by and done nothing.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so..[/p][/quote]Just out of interest can you tell us if your husband has received any previous warnings for using excessive force during the course of his duties? And if so how many?[/p][/quote]no he hasnt ever received any previous warnings even thiugh he has knives waved at him and guns pointed at him previously all in the course of his job..... and he had a clean work record just for your info...and would you expect to be hung out to dry and not be conatcted by any management for over 5 days after coming out of hospital.....and then only to be served with a "we dont care whats happend to you but we are going to sack you" attitude........ i think not. mthew
  • Score: 17

1:05pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

I still have the file somewhere, I will fish it out and quite happily paste it to this page for all to see. Blantant liar. Your husband is a bully. I hope he enjoys being jobless
I still have the file somewhere, I will fish it out and quite happily paste it to this page for all to see. Blantant liar. Your husband is a bully. I hope he enjoys being jobless Charlotte22
  • Score: -25

1:13pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Quiterie says...

mthew wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
mthew wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
Yes everyone is entitled to the opinion you have no idea cookie brighton, what my husband was faced with as you weren't there and if you had been i hope you wouldn't have stood by and done nothing.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so..
Just out of interest can you tell us if your husband has received any previous warnings for using excessive force during the course of his duties? And if so how many?
no he hasnt ever received any previous warnings even thiugh he has knives waved at him and guns pointed at him previously all in the course of his job..... and he had a clean work record just for your info...and would you expect to be hung out to dry and not be conatcted by any management for over 5 days after coming out of hospital.....and then only to be served with a "we dont care whats happend to you but we are going to sack you" attitude........ i think not.
I just wondered. Thanks for answering.
[quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]Yes everyone is entitled to the opinion you have no idea cookie brighton, what my husband was faced with as you weren't there and if you had been i hope you wouldn't have stood by and done nothing.........and if it were your children or a relative of yours on that bus that he was trying to protect, then your comments would be different and if it were your partner that had been threatned with a bottle do you honestly think that they would have stood by and let another person bottle them in the face and face risking blindness..... i dont think so..[/p][/quote]Just out of interest can you tell us if your husband has received any previous warnings for using excessive force during the course of his duties? And if so how many?[/p][/quote]no he hasnt ever received any previous warnings even thiugh he has knives waved at him and guns pointed at him previously all in the course of his job..... and he had a clean work record just for your info...and would you expect to be hung out to dry and not be conatcted by any management for over 5 days after coming out of hospital.....and then only to be served with a "we dont care whats happend to you but we are going to sack you" attitude........ i think not.[/p][/quote]I just wondered. Thanks for answering. Quiterie
  • Score: 13

1:20pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
I still have the file somewhere, I will fish it out and quite happily paste it to this page for all to see. Blantant liar. Your husband is a bully. I hope he enjoys being jobless
I've just done a search of the internet and local court cases - nothing. I call you out as a liar.
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: I still have the file somewhere, I will fish it out and quite happily paste it to this page for all to see. Blantant liar. Your husband is a bully. I hope he enjoys being jobless[/p][/quote]I've just done a search of the internet and local court cases - nothing. I call you out as a liar. Fight_Back
  • Score: 24

1:30pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Hooitness says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
I still have the file somewhere, I will fish it out and quite happily paste it to this page for all to see. Blantant liar. Your husband is a bully. I hope he enjoys being jobless
I get the impression you know a lot about being jobless.
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: I still have the file somewhere, I will fish it out and quite happily paste it to this page for all to see. Blantant liar. Your husband is a bully. I hope he enjoys being jobless[/p][/quote]I get the impression you know a lot about being jobless. Hooitness
  • Score: 15

1:30pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

That's laughable . I didn't even know you could do that. I just tried myself with no joy. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was a juvenile so it's not available . Believe what you want. I know mr thew will be sitting there with steam coming from his ears knowing I have ousted him. I don't need to prove myself to any of you. I hope he goes through with his case of unfair dismissal, and then the truth will come out. Maybe the CCTV coverage should be available for public viewing, I would like to see it. I'd bet my last gold nugget she was heavy handed. Vile man
That's laughable . I didn't even know you could do that. I just tried myself with no joy. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was a juvenile so it's not available . Believe what you want. I know mr thew will be sitting there with steam coming from his ears knowing I have ousted him. I don't need to prove myself to any of you. I hope he goes through with his case of unfair dismissal, and then the truth will come out. Maybe the CCTV coverage should be available for public viewing, I would like to see it. I'd bet my last gold nugget she was heavy handed. Vile man Charlotte22
  • Score: -18

1:30pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Metro Reader says...

much more to this than being reported.
Why was the drunk allowed to board in the first place.
it also takes a lot of force to brake an ankle, never mind in three places.

Sound like the force used was over the top. Play within the rules and he would still be in a job.

If he was so theatened then why not call the police and keep a distance? excessive force must have been recoreded on CCTV.

If this man wants to take it futhern he should not be talking to the press.
much more to this than being reported. Why was the drunk allowed to board in the first place. it also takes a lot of force to brake an ankle, never mind in three places. Sound like the force used was over the top. Play within the rules and he would still be in a job. If he was so theatened then why not call the police and keep a distance? excessive force must have been recoreded on CCTV. If this man wants to take it futhern he should not be talking to the press. Metro Reader
  • Score: -5

1:32pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

Hooitness I work part time as I have 2 children to look after and my partner works full time after leaving the army recently. You know nothing about me, so don't be so judgmental .
Hooitness I work part time as I have 2 children to look after and my partner works full time after leaving the army recently. You know nothing about me, so don't be so judgmental . Charlotte22
  • Score: -9

1:33pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
That's laughable . I didn't even know you could do that. I just tried myself with no joy. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was a juvenile so it's not available . Believe what you want. I know mr thew will be sitting there with steam coming from his ears knowing I have ousted him. I don't need to prove myself to any of you. I hope he goes through with his case of unfair dismissal, and then the truth will come out. Maybe the CCTV coverage should be available for public viewing, I would like to see it. I'd bet my last gold nugget she was heavy handed. Vile man
The case would still be listed just your name would be replaced with something generic. Maybe if you detailed which court and the date ? As it stands I can find no court cases in Sussex that Mr Thew has been involved in. That would imply you're being libelous.
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: That's laughable . I didn't even know you could do that. I just tried myself with no joy. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was a juvenile so it's not available . Believe what you want. I know mr thew will be sitting there with steam coming from his ears knowing I have ousted him. I don't need to prove myself to any of you. I hope he goes through with his case of unfair dismissal, and then the truth will come out. Maybe the CCTV coverage should be available for public viewing, I would like to see it. I'd bet my last gold nugget she was heavy handed. Vile man[/p][/quote]The case would still be listed just your name would be replaced with something generic. Maybe if you detailed which court and the date ? As it stands I can find no court cases in Sussex that Mr Thew has been involved in. That would imply you're being libelous. Fight_Back
  • Score: 13

1:43pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

Like I said laughable. When I next go down to my shed where the files are I will get them out and scan them onto the computer and post them here, then I'll await an apology.
Like I said laughable. When I next go down to my shed where the files are I will get them out and scan them onto the computer and post them here, then I'll await an apology. Charlotte22
  • Score: -13

1:45pm Mon 10 Mar 14

76robmac says...

Brighton and Hove bus company are a total disgrace, even if Mr Thew had used a little force to get this idiot off of the bus he was protecting himself and possible the other passengers.
Brighton and Hove bus company are a total disgrace, even if Mr Thew had used a little force to get this idiot off of the bus he was protecting himself and possible the other passengers. 76robmac
  • Score: 11

1:48pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
Like I said laughable. When I next go down to my shed where the files are I will get them out and scan them onto the computer and post them here, then I'll await an apology.
At the moment you've made an accusation with no evidence. Just the details of which court and a rough date will allow people to confirm your story ( and one would expect even a 14/15 year old to be able to remember those details if it were true ).
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: Like I said laughable. When I next go down to my shed where the files are I will get them out and scan them onto the computer and post them here, then I'll await an apology.[/p][/quote]At the moment you've made an accusation with no evidence. Just the details of which court and a rough date will allow people to confirm your story ( and one would expect even a 14/15 year old to be able to remember those details if it were true ). Fight_Back
  • Score: 16

1:50pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
Hooitness I work part time as I have 2 children to look after and my partner works full time after leaving the army recently. You know nothing about me, so don't be so judgmental .
Yet you are expecting us to be judgemental on the basis of your personal feelings.
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: Hooitness I work part time as I have 2 children to look after and my partner works full time after leaving the army recently. You know nothing about me, so don't be so judgmental .[/p][/quote]Yet you are expecting us to be judgemental on the basis of your personal feelings. mimseycal
  • Score: 10

1:53pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Andy R says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Charlotte22 wrote:
In response the the comment from fight back, no it was not an alcoholic drink. At the time of this incident I was very confused and emotional, as you can imagine. Nigel had no right to man handle me the way he did. I was a child at the time, and he towered above me. Nothing more then a nasty piece of work. Maybe he would benefit from an anger management course.
I refer you to the post above .... it would appear the court decided Mr Thew wasn't in the wrong.
But it doesn't necessarily matter what a court decides. It's a myth that just because a court decides that certain behaviour is not criminal, that this means that the employer won't nevertheless regard that behaviour as misconduct. Being persistently late for work isn't a crime, but it will eventually get you sacked.
I was talking about Charlotte's case not the current one.
Yeah fair enough, but the point is the same. An incident lands you in court and on an employer disciplinary - being acquitted in court won't necessarily prevent a finding of misconduct by the employer. The young nurse acquitted of murder of a patient a few years back was still sacked for not not following procedures on storage and accounting of medicines.

If this guy is hard done by then I hope his workmates will take up the cudgels on his behalf, but I guess they won't if they think it was a fair outcome......
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: In response the the comment from fight back, no it was not an alcoholic drink. At the time of this incident I was very confused and emotional, as you can imagine. Nigel had no right to man handle me the way he did. I was a child at the time, and he towered above me. Nothing more then a nasty piece of work. Maybe he would benefit from an anger management course.[/p][/quote]I refer you to the post above .... it would appear the court decided Mr Thew wasn't in the wrong.[/p][/quote]But it doesn't necessarily matter what a court decides. It's a myth that just because a court decides that certain behaviour is not criminal, that this means that the employer won't nevertheless regard that behaviour as misconduct. Being persistently late for work isn't a crime, but it will eventually get you sacked.[/p][/quote]I was talking about Charlotte's case not the current one.[/p][/quote]Yeah fair enough, but the point is the same. An incident lands you in court and on an employer disciplinary - being acquitted in court won't necessarily prevent a finding of misconduct by the employer. The young nurse acquitted of murder of a patient a few years back was still sacked for not not following procedures on storage and accounting of medicines. If this guy is hard done by then I hope his workmates will take up the cudgels on his behalf, but I guess they won't if they think it was a fair outcome...... Andy R
  • Score: 11

1:57pm Mon 10 Mar 14

birthofanorange says...

I hope Mr. Thew does take this to a tribunal, as then the full facts will emerge. I also do not believe that he would take things this far (as in 'go public'), and intend to pursue matters further if he had something to hide.
Somebody who was guilty of something would surely want to keep quiet?
As for "Charlotte" - Yes, I'd love to see those files....when you can be bothered to go to your shed. lol.
I hope Mr. Thew does take this to a tribunal, as then the full facts will emerge. I also do not believe that he would take things this far (as in 'go public'), and intend to pursue matters further if he had something to hide. Somebody who was guilty of something would surely want to keep quiet? As for "Charlotte" - Yes, I'd love to see those files....when you can be bothered to go to your shed. lol. birthofanorange
  • Score: 16

2:06pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Charlotte22 says...

You lot are boring. I hope the CCTV becomes available to the public for all to see. Then you can say I was right. Idiots
You lot are boring. I hope the CCTV becomes available to the public for all to see. Then you can say I was right. Idiots Charlotte22
  • Score: -25

2:08pm Mon 10 Mar 14

birthofanorange says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
You lot are boring. I hope the CCTV becomes available to the public for all to see. Then you can say I was right. Idiots
Boring? Maybe....Liars? Look to yourself. Put up or shut up.
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: You lot are boring. I hope the CCTV becomes available to the public for all to see. Then you can say I was right. Idiots[/p][/quote]Boring? Maybe....Liars? Look to yourself. Put up or shut up. birthofanorange
  • Score: 16

2:19pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
You lot are boring. I hope the CCTV becomes available to the public for all to see. Then you can say I was right. Idiots
So you can't even remember which court and year ? Hmmmmm ........
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: You lot are boring. I hope the CCTV becomes available to the public for all to see. Then you can say I was right. Idiots[/p][/quote]So you can't even remember which court and year ? Hmmmmm ........ Fight_Back
  • Score: 22

2:26pm Mon 10 Mar 14

michael201273 says...

Nigel thew your a muppet. It's a good job you did not try and kick me of off the bus, as you would have got both your legs broken and your nose.
Don't try and be a big hero. It don't wash with me.
Nigel thew your a muppet. It's a good job you did not try and kick me of off the bus, as you would have got both your legs broken and your nose. Don't try and be a big hero. It don't wash with me. michael201273
  • Score: -39

2:27pm Mon 10 Mar 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Brighton & Hove Bus company are sending out a clear message here

Don't let children travel on our buses & expect them to stay safe as we couldn't care less about their safety
Brighton & Hove Bus company are sending out a clear message here Don't let children travel on our buses & expect them to stay safe as we couldn't care less about their safety getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 23

2:28pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Pebbles says...

mimseycal wrote:
Pebbles wrote:
Interesting to see the views from others on this.

The first impression I had was that this chap was harshly dealt with by the company. I also took on board the comments of others who were aiming their thoughts at the management.

Then we see the last post by Charlotte22. Of course we have to take such a post on face value and presume it is based on facts.

So, balancing up what we have been provided, which may or may not be the full story but we have to work with what has been provided:

1: The CCTV evidence that apparantly determined the outcome

2:The last post by Charlotte22

Based on this one may have to consider that perhaps the management may have made the correct decision here.

Such a decision is not normally made without solid facts as the possibility of a future claim agains the company would have been taken into consideration.

Furthermore, it is quite common for a large company to have legal insurance whereby legal advice is given on possible courses of actions and the relevent consequences.

If a course of action is decided on then it is usually backed by an insurance endemnity which will cover any future monatory losses.

It would certainly be interesting to see the CCTV evidence which would more than likely fill in the gaps.
The incident Charlotte22 relates, was aired in a court of law, Mr Thew was not held as having acted either unreasonably or against the law. Further the incidents are 10 years apart therefore, consider both two facts as mentioned, they can have no bearing on this matter.
Fair point but there was no stated outcome of the case. Any opinion offered for consideration is based on what is posted on here. I really try to look at bothe sides, purely through experience in dealing with such matters in the past.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pebbles[/bold] wrote: Interesting to see the views from others on this. The first impression I had was that this chap was harshly dealt with by the company. I also took on board the comments of others who were aiming their thoughts at the management. Then we see the last post by Charlotte22. Of course we have to take such a post on face value and presume it is based on facts. So, balancing up what we have been provided, which may or may not be the full story but we have to work with what has been provided: 1: The CCTV evidence that apparantly determined the outcome 2:The last post by Charlotte22 Based on this one may have to consider that perhaps the management may have made the correct decision here. Such a decision is not normally made without solid facts as the possibility of a future claim agains the company would have been taken into consideration. Furthermore, it is quite common for a large company to have legal insurance whereby legal advice is given on possible courses of actions and the relevent consequences. If a course of action is decided on then it is usually backed by an insurance endemnity which will cover any future monatory losses. It would certainly be interesting to see the CCTV evidence which would more than likely fill in the gaps.[/p][/quote]The incident Charlotte22 relates, was aired in a court of law, Mr Thew was not held as having acted either unreasonably or against the law. Further the incidents are 10 years apart therefore, consider both two facts as mentioned, they can have no bearing on this matter.[/p][/quote]Fair point but there was no stated outcome of the case. Any opinion offered for consideration is based on what is posted on here. I really try to look at bothe sides, purely through experience in dealing with such matters in the past. Pebbles
  • Score: 3

2:28pm Mon 10 Mar 14

michael201273 says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
Well said mate, if that had happened to me he would have been very very injured. Poor drunk man
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]Well said mate, if that had happened to me he would have been very very injured. Poor drunk man michael201273
  • Score: -30

2:32pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

michael201273 wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
Well said mate, if that had happened to me he would have been very very injured. Poor drunk man
I'm guessing you're suggesting that you would have felt the need to abuse school children then ? What a nice chap you are ! Hard as well quite clearly ........ not.
[quote][p][bold]michael201273[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]Well said mate, if that had happened to me he would have been very very injured. Poor drunk man[/p][/quote]I'm guessing you're suggesting that you would have felt the need to abuse school children then ? What a nice chap you are ! Hard as well quite clearly ........ not. Fight_Back
  • Score: 19

2:43pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Pebbles says...

I have just taken note that mimseycal appears to be the chaps partner and naturally defensive of the situation which is only to be expected.

On this basis I do think that it may the a good idea to refrain from getting involved in protracted arguments if this matters is goiing to be taken further, if only to protact Mr Threw.

If Mr Threw does indeed wish to take this further to prove his case of wrongful dismisal then he would would have the right to call on all the evidence that was used against him. In fact he has the right to make what is called a "Subject request' from the data controller of the CCTV system. As laid down by the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) such a request must be provided and a maximum of £10 is charged for this. Se www.ico.org.uk Best of luck with this.
I have just taken note that mimseycal appears to be the chaps partner and naturally defensive of the situation which is only to be expected. On this basis I do think that it may the a good idea to refrain from getting involved in protracted arguments if this matters is goiing to be taken further, if only to protact Mr Threw. If Mr Threw does indeed wish to take this further to prove his case of wrongful dismisal then he would would have the right to call on all the evidence that was used against him. In fact he has the right to make what is called a "Subject request' from the data controller of the CCTV system. As laid down by the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) such a request must be provided and a maximum of £10 is charged for this. Se www.ico.org.uk Best of luck with this. Pebbles
  • Score: 6

2:44pm Mon 10 Mar 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

For mouthy drunks, kebab eaters and ninja assassin pensioners trying to sneak on with their bus pass 5 minutes early I'm not sure what an appropriate level of violence could be set at. Has UKIP suggested arming bus sheriffs yet?
I would initially suggest on-the-spot fines but could they be much worse than the on-the-spot fares everyone else pays already?
For mouthy drunks, kebab eaters and ninja assassin pensioners trying to sneak on with their bus pass 5 minutes early I'm not sure what an appropriate level of violence could be set at. Has UKIP suggested arming bus sheriffs yet? I would initially suggest on-the-spot fines but could they be much worse than the on-the-spot fares everyone else pays already? From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 3

2:56pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mthew says...

Pebbles wrote:
I have just taken note that mimseycal appears to be the chaps partner and naturally defensive of the situation which is only to be expected.

On this basis I do think that it may the a good idea to refrain from getting involved in protracted arguments if this matters is goiing to be taken further, if only to protact Mr Threw.

If Mr Threw does indeed wish to take this further to prove his case of wrongful dismisal then he would would have the right to call on all the evidence that was used against him. In fact he has the right to make what is called a "Subject request' from the data controller of the CCTV system. As laid down by the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) such a request must be provided and a maximum of £10 is charged for this. Se www.ico.org.uk Best of luck with this.
Hi Pebbles......mimseyc
al is not the chaps partner, I am and we have already requested a subject request form, thanks for the advice though
[quote][p][bold]Pebbles[/bold] wrote: I have just taken note that mimseycal appears to be the chaps partner and naturally defensive of the situation which is only to be expected. On this basis I do think that it may the a good idea to refrain from getting involved in protracted arguments if this matters is goiing to be taken further, if only to protact Mr Threw. If Mr Threw does indeed wish to take this further to prove his case of wrongful dismisal then he would would have the right to call on all the evidence that was used against him. In fact he has the right to make what is called a "Subject request' from the data controller of the CCTV system. As laid down by the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) such a request must be provided and a maximum of £10 is charged for this. Se www.ico.org.uk Best of luck with this.[/p][/quote]Hi Pebbles......mimseyc al is not the chaps partner, I am and we have already requested a subject request form, thanks for the advice though mthew
  • Score: 10

3:02pm Mon 10 Mar 14

spa301 says...

He was not the driver of the bus, as the article makes quite plain. (It's always best to actually read the article before flying straight into self righteous indignation)
He was a supervisor called to the scene by the driver, which was the same scenario as Charlotte relates. He would appear to be quite a large man and it is quite possible he has a tendency to steam in before properly assessing the situation. No one here who hasn't seen the cctv or was there on the bus can possibly know what actually occurred. I deplore antisocial drunks as much as the next person but we can't allow anyone to hand out their own version of justice as they feel fit.
If he's confident that he did nothing wrong then take B&H buses to a tribunal and let them decide. Trial by Argus is not the way.
He was not the driver of the bus, as the article makes quite plain. (It's always best to actually read the article before flying straight into self righteous indignation) He was a supervisor called to the scene by the driver, which was the same scenario as Charlotte relates. He would appear to be quite a large man and it is quite possible he has a tendency to steam in before properly assessing the situation. No one here who hasn't seen the cctv or was there on the bus can possibly know what actually occurred. I deplore antisocial drunks as much as the next person but we can't allow anyone to hand out their own version of justice as they feel fit. If he's confident that he did nothing wrong then take B&H buses to a tribunal and let them decide. Trial by Argus is not the way. spa301
  • Score: 16

3:03pm Mon 10 Mar 14

cookie_brighton says...

Brighton Bill wrote:
Brighton & Hove Bus Co you are absolutely pathetic, get behind your workers, you should be made to feel safe on a Bus and at least he stood up to the drunk, come on the Drivers Union get involved and stand up for your member, he should get a medal, you need employees like him. Shame on you. Brighton & Hove Bus Co. Brighton Bill in Bradford West Yorkshire.
hi bill...hows my mates in Idle keeping lol...i noticed they have closed the swan.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Bill[/bold] wrote: Brighton & Hove Bus Co you are absolutely pathetic, get behind your workers, you should be made to feel safe on a Bus and at least he stood up to the drunk, come on the Drivers Union get involved and stand up for your member, he should get a medal, you need employees like him. Shame on you. Brighton & Hove Bus Co. Brighton Bill in Bradford West Yorkshire.[/p][/quote]hi bill...hows my mates in Idle keeping lol...i noticed they have closed the swan. cookie_brighton
  • Score: -6

3:03pm Mon 10 Mar 14

fredflintstone1 says...

So Martin Harris knows more than the police who investigated the incident, and the CPS who brought charges against the passenger, that were ultimately proven in court, on the basis that he has seen CCTV images that have no sound?

It's not him who is at the sharp end and likely to be glassed and scarred for life. Disgusting treatment of a long-serving employee placed in a dangerous situation, who, as comments earlier on this post make clear, was highly valued by his colleagues. Does Harris not have a duty of care?
So Martin Harris knows more than the police who investigated the incident, and the CPS who brought charges against the passenger, that were ultimately proven in court, on the basis that he has seen CCTV images that have no sound? It's not him who is at the sharp end and likely to be glassed and scarred for life. Disgusting treatment of a long-serving employee placed in a dangerous situation, who, as comments earlier on this post make clear, was highly valued by his colleagues. Does Harris not have a duty of care? fredflintstone1
  • Score: 13

3:04pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Pebbles wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Pebbles wrote:
Interesting to see the views from others on this.

The first impression I had was that this chap was harshly dealt with by the company. I also took on board the comments of others who were aiming their thoughts at the management.

Then we see the last post by Charlotte22. Of course we have to take such a post on face value and presume it is based on facts.

So, balancing up what we have been provided, which may or may not be the full story but we have to work with what has been provided:

1: The CCTV evidence that apparantly determined the outcome

2:The last post by Charlotte22

Based on this one may have to consider that perhaps the management may have made the correct decision here.

Such a decision is not normally made without solid facts as the possibility of a future claim agains the company would have been taken into consideration.

Furthermore, it is quite common for a large company to have legal insurance whereby legal advice is given on possible courses of actions and the relevent consequences.

If a course of action is decided on then it is usually backed by an insurance endemnity which will cover any future monatory losses.

It would certainly be interesting to see the CCTV evidence which would more than likely fill in the gaps.
The incident Charlotte22 relates, was aired in a court of law, Mr Thew was not held as having acted either unreasonably or against the law. Further the incidents are 10 years apart therefore, consider both two facts as mentioned, they can have no bearing on this matter.
Fair point but there was no stated outcome of the case. Any opinion offered for consideration is based on what is posted on here. I really try to look at bothe sides, purely through experience in dealing with such matters in the past.
There was a stated outcome in relation to the incident we are currently considering. Charlotte22 stated in her comment on this matter that the court did not find that Mr Thew acted in any way unreasonably or aggressively.
[quote][p][bold]Pebbles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pebbles[/bold] wrote: Interesting to see the views from others on this. The first impression I had was that this chap was harshly dealt with by the company. I also took on board the comments of others who were aiming their thoughts at the management. Then we see the last post by Charlotte22. Of course we have to take such a post on face value and presume it is based on facts. So, balancing up what we have been provided, which may or may not be the full story but we have to work with what has been provided: 1: The CCTV evidence that apparantly determined the outcome 2:The last post by Charlotte22 Based on this one may have to consider that perhaps the management may have made the correct decision here. Such a decision is not normally made without solid facts as the possibility of a future claim agains the company would have been taken into consideration. Furthermore, it is quite common for a large company to have legal insurance whereby legal advice is given on possible courses of actions and the relevent consequences. If a course of action is decided on then it is usually backed by an insurance endemnity which will cover any future monatory losses. It would certainly be interesting to see the CCTV evidence which would more than likely fill in the gaps.[/p][/quote]The incident Charlotte22 relates, was aired in a court of law, Mr Thew was not held as having acted either unreasonably or against the law. Further the incidents are 10 years apart therefore, consider both two facts as mentioned, they can have no bearing on this matter.[/p][/quote]Fair point but there was no stated outcome of the case. Any opinion offered for consideration is based on what is posted on here. I really try to look at bothe sides, purely through experience in dealing with such matters in the past.[/p][/quote]There was a stated outcome in relation to the incident we are currently considering. Charlotte22 stated in her comment on this matter that the court did not find that Mr Thew acted in any way unreasonably or aggressively. mimseycal
  • Score: 6

3:23pm Mon 10 Mar 14

tykemison says...

spa301 wrote:
He was not the driver of the bus, as the article makes quite plain. (It's always best to actually read the article before flying straight into self righteous indignation)
He was a supervisor called to the scene by the driver, which was the same scenario as Charlotte relates. He would appear to be quite a large man and it is quite possible he has a tendency to steam in before properly assessing the situation. No one here who hasn't seen the cctv or was there on the bus can possibly know what actually occurred. I deplore antisocial drunks as much as the next person but we can't allow anyone to hand out their own version of justice as they feel fit.
If he's confident that he did nothing wrong then take B&H buses to a tribunal and let them decide. Trial by Argus is not the way.
Spa,this is not the place for reason,this is the argus!!We do not need facts,we can perjure ourselves without the need of a court of law!!
[quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: He was not the driver of the bus, as the article makes quite plain. (It's always best to actually read the article before flying straight into self righteous indignation) He was a supervisor called to the scene by the driver, which was the same scenario as Charlotte relates. He would appear to be quite a large man and it is quite possible he has a tendency to steam in before properly assessing the situation. No one here who hasn't seen the cctv or was there on the bus can possibly know what actually occurred. I deplore antisocial drunks as much as the next person but we can't allow anyone to hand out their own version of justice as they feel fit. If he's confident that he did nothing wrong then take B&H buses to a tribunal and let them decide. Trial by Argus is not the way.[/p][/quote]Spa,this is not the place for reason,this is the argus!!We do not need facts,we can perjure ourselves without the need of a court of law!! tykemison
  • Score: 9

3:33pm Mon 10 Mar 14

MICKY389 says...

Charlotte22 I believe admits her drink was spiked, so her recollections may be neither clear nor reliable.Something seems to be going dramatically wrong with BH&D since Mr. French left and the new man took over.
Charlotte22 I believe admits her drink was spiked, so her recollections may be neither clear nor reliable.Something seems to be going dramatically wrong with BH&D since Mr. French left and the new man took over. MICKY389
  • Score: 13

3:34pm Mon 10 Mar 14

essencebrighton says...

My elderly parents live in Saltdean, and I am shocked to see that a loyal member of staff is treated this way after putting his safety before others. Like my parents, if my kids had been on this bus I would be livid . How bad have things to get for this to happen?????????.
We live in a city with a diverse range of people and no one should feel unsafe to travel. This now ex worker should be rewarded, and The Brighton and Hove bus company should of used this as an example of behaviour tolerance.
Perhaps staff should be more protected as a company has a duty of care to work against. I buy a yearly pass and find the rising price is effecting the falling standards. Oh and before I depart can I just say the buses are dirty,unclean and generally quite disgusting.
My elderly parents live in Saltdean, and I am shocked to see that a loyal member of staff is treated this way after putting his safety before others. Like my parents, if my kids had been on this bus I would be livid . How bad have things to get for this to happen?????????. We live in a city with a diverse range of people and no one should feel unsafe to travel. This now ex worker should be rewarded, and The Brighton and Hove bus company should of used this as an example of behaviour tolerance. Perhaps staff should be more protected as a company has a duty of care to work against. I buy a yearly pass and find the rising price is effecting the falling standards. Oh and before I depart can I just say the buses are dirty,unclean and generally quite disgusting. essencebrighton
  • Score: 16

3:53pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Richada says...

mimseycal wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast.

If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.
The drunk passenger was found guilty as charged. Surely, as far as any right minded person or employer is concerned that should vindicate Mr Thew.

Surely when one purchases a ticket to travel on the bus one has the right to a certain basic level of safety, I would have found Mr Thew's presence and actions very reassuring and am left wondering quite how Mr Harris would have handled this situation had he been on that particular bus instead of Mr Thew.

Not a great advertisement for Brighton & Hove Buses this.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast. If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.[/p][/quote]The drunk passenger was found guilty as charged. Surely, as far as any right minded person or employer is concerned that should vindicate Mr Thew. Surely when one purchases a ticket to travel on the bus one has the right to a certain basic level of safety, I would have found Mr Thew's presence and actions very reassuring and am left wondering quite how Mr Harris would have handled this situation had he been on that particular bus instead of Mr Thew. Not a great advertisement for Brighton & Hove Buses this. Richada
  • Score: 13

3:56pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Richada says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast.

If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.
should be....but are NOT........the law is the law.
In this case then, the law is clearly an ****.
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]There are some lines that should be regarded as indicative rather then hard and fast. If this incident with the drunk is the sole reason behind the dismissal then the company are in the wrong.[/p][/quote]should be....but are NOT........the law is the law.[/p][/quote]In this case then, the law is clearly an ****. Richada
  • Score: 3

4:54pm Mon 10 Mar 14

canonball says...

ive know nigel for a number of years and I would have to say I would like him on my bus anytime . To think he got called out to a bus by a female driver coz a drunk person was verbally abusing school kids with some pretty crude comments by all accounts to remove this person from the bus this is what he did . please remember you are allowed to use reasonable force to remove and hold anyone till the police get to you. He held on to this drunk all the time with a broken ankle till the police arrived and there for did his job. The bus company would be more concerned with the lost mileage than about Nigel Thew . I think he has been treated so unfairly and it would seem that others are in the firing line as well as some top names have been sacked recently as well DRIVERS BEWARE NO BACKUP AT ALL NOW YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN
ive know nigel for a number of years and I would have to say I would like him on my bus anytime . To think he got called out to a bus by a female driver coz a drunk person was verbally abusing school kids with some pretty crude comments by all accounts to remove this person from the bus this is what he did . please remember you are allowed to use reasonable force to remove and hold anyone till the police get to you. He held on to this drunk all the time with a broken ankle till the police arrived and there for did his job. The bus company would be more concerned with the lost mileage than about Nigel Thew . I think he has been treated so unfairly and it would seem that others are in the firing line as well as some top names have been sacked recently as well DRIVERS BEWARE NO BACKUP AT ALL NOW YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN canonball
  • Score: 18

4:59pm Mon 10 Mar 14

S Avery. says...

First of all thank you spa301 for telling my daughter to rise above it.. Fight bk z thew needs no evidence of her comments she is his kid.. As I should know the mother of his two kids and kindly say fight bk would you like me to show you her birth certificate .. Not that she needs to prove it
First of all thank you spa301 for telling my daughter to rise above it.. Fight bk z thew needs no evidence of her comments she is his kid.. As I should know the mother of his two kids and kindly say fight bk would you like me to show you her birth certificate .. Not that she needs to prove it S Avery.
  • Score: -11

5:09pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

Oh dear - the accusation slingers are struggling to type English.
Oh dear - the accusation slingers are struggling to type English. Fight_Back
  • Score: 15

5:13pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mthew says...

Just to put the record straight for charlotte22, what she omits to tell everyone is that yes she was 14 but was arrested with her sister for trying to head but Mr Thew and 2 police officers at the time, so yes Mr Thew had every right to defend himself and yes she was prosecuted as a minor by the police and tried to intimidate Mr Thew outside the court at a later date, so these are the sort of people that are out there. But of course these type never admit that they are in the wrong. Anyway this is not a personal vendetta website for childish adults so share your vendettas elsewhere please.
Just to put the record straight for charlotte22, what she omits to tell everyone is that yes she was 14 but was arrested with her sister for trying to head but Mr Thew and 2 police officers at the time, so yes Mr Thew had every right to defend himself and yes she was prosecuted as a minor by the police and tried to intimidate Mr Thew outside the court at a later date, so these are the sort of people that are out there. But of course these type never admit that they are in the wrong. Anyway this is not a personal vendetta website for childish adults so share your vendettas elsewhere please. mthew
  • Score: 22

5:19pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

zthew91 wrote:
Would you like to provide evidence that this isn't the case as your so keen on providing such information!
You might not have noticed, but in this country the burden of proof is on the accuser. That means the person saying something nasty has to prove they are telling the truth ...... not the other way around.
[quote][p][bold]zthew91[/bold] wrote: Would you like to provide evidence that this isn't the case as your so keen on providing such information![/p][/quote]You might not have noticed, but in this country the burden of proof is on the accuser. That means the person saying something nasty has to prove they are telling the truth ...... not the other way around. Fight_Back
  • Score: 8

5:22pm Mon 10 Mar 14

spa301 says...

As an impartial reader with no axe to grind I really think this is starting to get unpleasant, personal and out of hand.
Why use this very public forum to start slinging all these accusations about.
The place for this specific case to be resolved is in an employment tribunal furnished with all the facts and video available. Nothing will be achieved this way.
As an impartial reader with no axe to grind I really think this is starting to get unpleasant, personal and out of hand. Why use this very public forum to start slinging all these accusations about. The place for this specific case to be resolved is in an employment tribunal furnished with all the facts and video available. Nothing will be achieved this way. spa301
  • Score: 13

5:30pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Pebbles says...

mthew wrote:
Pebbles wrote:
I have just taken note that mimseycal appears to be the chaps partner and naturally defensive of the situation which is only to be expected.

On this basis I do think that it may the a good idea to refrain from getting involved in protracted arguments if this matters is goiing to be taken further, if only to protact Mr Threw.

If Mr Threw does indeed wish to take this further to prove his case of wrongful dismisal then he would would have the right to call on all the evidence that was used against him. In fact he has the right to make what is called a "Subject request' from the data controller of the CCTV system. As laid down by the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) such a request must be provided and a maximum of £10 is charged for this. Se www.ico.org.uk Best of luck with this.
Hi Pebbles......mimseyc

al is not the chaps partner, I am and we have already requested a subject request form, thanks for the advice though
Sorry for the mistake there.. good luck.
[quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pebbles[/bold] wrote: I have just taken note that mimseycal appears to be the chaps partner and naturally defensive of the situation which is only to be expected. On this basis I do think that it may the a good idea to refrain from getting involved in protracted arguments if this matters is goiing to be taken further, if only to protact Mr Threw. If Mr Threw does indeed wish to take this further to prove his case of wrongful dismisal then he would would have the right to call on all the evidence that was used against him. In fact he has the right to make what is called a "Subject request' from the data controller of the CCTV system. As laid down by the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) such a request must be provided and a maximum of £10 is charged for this. Se www.ico.org.uk Best of luck with this.[/p][/quote]Hi Pebbles......mimseyc al is not the chaps partner, I am and we have already requested a subject request form, thanks for the advice though[/p][/quote]Sorry for the mistake there.. good luck. Pebbles
  • Score: 5

5:42pm Mon 10 Mar 14

birthofanorange says...

Roger French must be shaking his head in despair at what is happening to B&H. Granted, he had his critics, but the terrible publicity the company is receiving these days speaks volumes.
Hopefully, he won't be reading all this and is enjoying his retirement.
Good luck at the tribunal, Mr. Thew.
Roger French must be shaking his head in despair at what is happening to B&H. Granted, he had his critics, but the terrible publicity the company is receiving these days speaks volumes. Hopefully, he won't be reading all this and is enjoying his retirement. Good luck at the tribunal, Mr. Thew. birthofanorange
  • Score: 21

6:55pm Mon 10 Mar 14

tez1959 says...

i suggest mr thew should be offerered a job in the police force good on ya mate shame there werent a lot more brave people around like you protecting the children and the public should be given a big bravery award from the bus company
i suggest mr thew should be offerered a job in the police force good on ya mate shame there werent a lot more brave people around like you protecting the children and the public should be given a big bravery award from the bus company tez1959
  • Score: 7

6:58pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Withdean-er says...

This story has been hijacked by the lowlifes of Brighton. A drunken (oh yes, spiked) once-a-14 year old with an attitude problem who remains pointlessly bitter and spiteful a decade on, and a couple of internet hard men who would break the nose/arms/legs of any bus driver that physically tried to eject them from a bus. Thank Christ for cctv, the police, law and vast majority of the population who are civil, leaving the grime to waste their lives pretending to be tough and in police/prison cells.
This story has been hijacked by the lowlifes of Brighton. A drunken (oh yes, spiked) once-a-14 year old with an attitude problem who remains pointlessly bitter and spiteful a decade on, and a couple of internet hard men who would break the nose/arms/legs of any bus driver that physically tried to eject them from a bus. Thank Christ for cctv, the police, law and vast majority of the population who are civil, leaving the grime to waste their lives pretending to be tough and in police/prison cells. Withdean-er
  • Score: 20

7:06pm Mon 10 Mar 14

LeonBIank666 says...

This is a tough one.

On the face of the story Mr. Thew was a Godsend and if my children were on the bus, I praise him accordingly. If I was on there, I can assure you the drunken scum would have got a good whacking if he threatened me.

However.............
I do not know B&H bus policy regarding this. If there is a policy not to interfere, then Mr. Thew has to go as he has clearly committed a gross misconduct. This is regardless of common law powers to use reasonable force etc.

For example it is my European Convention of Human Rights to practice my religion. However, if I drove a bus, I would not be allowed to park it up outside a church and attend a service for a few hours will I?

Also, I can further say it is actually quite hard to lose your job. It is a decision never taken lightly as there is so much comeback from employment solicitors etc.

If the facts presented above are correct, then I wish Mr. Thew the best in his appeal and hope he gets his job back. If this happens, B&H buses will need to then look at their policy and perhaps bring in common laws reasonable force caveats to its drivers etc.

I just hope the wool is not being pulled over our eyes here and Mr Thew is not telling porkies.
This is a tough one. On the face of the story Mr. Thew was a Godsend and if my children were on the bus, I praise him accordingly. If I was on there, I can assure you the drunken scum would have got a good whacking if he threatened me. However............. I do not know B&H bus policy regarding this. If there is a policy not to interfere, then Mr. Thew has to go as he has clearly committed a gross misconduct. This is regardless of common law powers to use reasonable force etc. For example it is my European Convention of Human Rights to practice my religion. However, if I drove a bus, I would not be allowed to park it up outside a church and attend a service for a few hours will I? Also, I can further say it is actually quite hard to lose your job. It is a decision never taken lightly as there is so much comeback from employment solicitors etc. If the facts presented above are correct, then I wish Mr. Thew the best in his appeal and hope he gets his job back. If this happens, B&H buses will need to then look at their policy and perhaps bring in common laws reasonable force caveats to its drivers etc. I just hope the wool is not being pulled over our eyes here and Mr Thew is not telling porkies. LeonBIank666
  • Score: 10

7:18pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mthew says...

LeonBIank666 wrote:
This is a tough one.

On the face of the story Mr. Thew was a Godsend and if my children were on the bus, I praise him accordingly. If I was on there, I can assure you the drunken scum would have got a good whacking if he threatened me.

However.............

I do not know B&H bus policy regarding this. If there is a policy not to interfere, then Mr. Thew has to go as he has clearly committed a gross misconduct. This is regardless of common law powers to use reasonable force etc.

For example it is my European Convention of Human Rights to practice my religion. However, if I drove a bus, I would not be allowed to park it up outside a church and attend a service for a few hours will I?

Also, I can further say it is actually quite hard to lose your job. It is a decision never taken lightly as there is so much comeback from employment solicitors etc.

If the facts presented above are correct, then I wish Mr. Thew the best in his appeal and hope he gets his job back. If this happens, B&H buses will need to then look at their policy and perhaps bring in common laws reasonable force caveats to its drivers etc.

I just hope the wool is not being pulled over our eyes here and Mr Thew is not telling porkies.
no leonblank666, my husband is not telling lies and has never done so and the fact is that B & H don't have any caveats on how the staff handle situations, only training that is 8 years out of date.
[quote][p][bold]LeonBIank666[/bold] wrote: This is a tough one. On the face of the story Mr. Thew was a Godsend and if my children were on the bus, I praise him accordingly. If I was on there, I can assure you the drunken scum would have got a good whacking if he threatened me. However............. I do not know B&H bus policy regarding this. If there is a policy not to interfere, then Mr. Thew has to go as he has clearly committed a gross misconduct. This is regardless of common law powers to use reasonable force etc. For example it is my European Convention of Human Rights to practice my religion. However, if I drove a bus, I would not be allowed to park it up outside a church and attend a service for a few hours will I? Also, I can further say it is actually quite hard to lose your job. It is a decision never taken lightly as there is so much comeback from employment solicitors etc. If the facts presented above are correct, then I wish Mr. Thew the best in his appeal and hope he gets his job back. If this happens, B&H buses will need to then look at their policy and perhaps bring in common laws reasonable force caveats to its drivers etc. I just hope the wool is not being pulled over our eyes here and Mr Thew is not telling porkies.[/p][/quote]no leonblank666, my husband is not telling lies and has never done so and the fact is that B & H don't have any caveats on how the staff handle situations, only training that is 8 years out of date. mthew
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Mon 10 Mar 14

LeonBIank666 says...

In that case I wish him all the very best.
In that case I wish him all the very best. LeonBIank666
  • Score: 6

7:57pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Mbbuses says...

I've known Nigel for many years and he has always had a temper and shirt fuse. I've seen him snap with drivers. In respect if his job I'd always want him on my side if I had an issue but on this occasion anybody who really believes he has been hard done by should deal with this via the right channels. If he had such a strong case the unions would support and pay for the tribunal but they like management have seen the CCTV as Nigel himself has and could not justify defending him. I wish you well in your future Nigel but grow your own pair and own up to what you did
I've known Nigel for many years and he has always had a temper and shirt fuse. I've seen him snap with drivers. In respect if his job I'd always want him on my side if I had an issue but on this occasion anybody who really believes he has been hard done by should deal with this via the right channels. If he had such a strong case the unions would support and pay for the tribunal but they like management have seen the CCTV as Nigel himself has and could not justify defending him. I wish you well in your future Nigel but grow your own pair and own up to what you did Mbbuses
  • Score: 9

8:04pm Mon 10 Mar 14

ronrostog says...

Arsehole drunk got marched off the bus, diddums to him. I don't care how rough Mr Thew was to be honest, served the idiot right. Thew even ended up with an injured ankle and gets sacked for his trouble. Should be reinstated for protecting his fellow employee, schoolchildren and whoever else was on the bus. As for Charlotte, get over it love, ten years ago. If your claim is true, rightly or wrongly you went potty at the guy and he grabbed you, so would I. A 14 year old wildcat is hard work, I remember one or two very well.
Arsehole drunk got marched off the bus, diddums to him. I don't care how rough Mr Thew was to be honest, served the idiot right. Thew even ended up with an injured ankle and gets sacked for his trouble. Should be reinstated for protecting his fellow employee, schoolchildren and whoever else was on the bus. As for Charlotte, get over it love, ten years ago. If your claim is true, rightly or wrongly you went potty at the guy and he grabbed you, so would I. A 14 year old wildcat is hard work, I remember one or two very well. ronrostog
  • Score: 8

8:10pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Curram41 says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Clearly B&H Buses think it's OK for passengers to threaten staff and abuse school children. The drunk even admitted the offence !!!!!! Shame on you B&H buses - you need more staff like Mr Thew not less.
Brighton and Hove buses should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I would have done exactly the same in Mr Thews position ........ After all, there was schoolchildren on the bus and drunks are always unpredictable. Mr Thew should be awarded for his bravery, not made to look like the criminal. Utterly disgusting !!!
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Clearly B&H Buses think it's OK for passengers to threaten staff and abuse school children. The drunk even admitted the offence !!!!!! Shame on you B&H buses - you need more staff like Mr Thew not less.[/p][/quote]Brighton and Hove buses should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I would have done exactly the same in Mr Thews position ........ After all, there was schoolchildren on the bus and drunks are always unpredictable. Mr Thew should be awarded for his bravery, not made to look like the criminal. Utterly disgusting !!! Curram41
  • Score: 3

8:14pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mthew says...

Mbbuses wrote:
I've known Nigel for many years and he has always had a temper and shirt fuse. I've seen him snap with drivers. In respect if his job I'd always want him on my side if I had an issue but on this occasion anybody who really believes he has been hard done by should deal with this via the right channels. If he had such a strong case the unions would support and pay for the tribunal but they like management have seen the CCTV as Nigel himself has and could not justify defending him. I wish you well in your future Nigel but grow your own pair and own up to what you did
glad it wasn't your kids (if you have any) that were on that bus that were subject to verbal abuse and im so glad it wasn't your face that the man threatened to put his bottle in and that you weren't put in that situation to have had a split second to make a decision on what to do.
[quote][p][bold]Mbbuses[/bold] wrote: I've known Nigel for many years and he has always had a temper and shirt fuse. I've seen him snap with drivers. In respect if his job I'd always want him on my side if I had an issue but on this occasion anybody who really believes he has been hard done by should deal with this via the right channels. If he had such a strong case the unions would support and pay for the tribunal but they like management have seen the CCTV as Nigel himself has and could not justify defending him. I wish you well in your future Nigel but grow your own pair and own up to what you did[/p][/quote]glad it wasn't your kids (if you have any) that were on that bus that were subject to verbal abuse and im so glad it wasn't your face that the man threatened to put his bottle in and that you weren't put in that situation to have had a split second to make a decision on what to do. mthew
  • Score: -6

8:31pm Mon 10 Mar 14

hubby says...

I remember now why I left Brighton.
Even Saltdean was getting taken over by violent,nasty people.
Eleven years of bliss in Spain.
I remember now why I left Brighton. Even Saltdean was getting taken over by violent,nasty people. Eleven years of bliss in Spain. hubby
  • Score: 7

8:36pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Mbbuses says...

mthew wrote:
Mbbuses wrote:
I've known Nigel for many years and he has always had a temper and shirt fuse. I've seen him snap with drivers. In respect if his job I'd always want him on my side if I had an issue but on this occasion anybody who really believes he has been hard done by should deal with this via the right channels. If he had such a strong case the unions would support and pay for the tribunal but they like management have seen the CCTV as Nigel himself has and could not justify defending him. I wish you well in your future Nigel but grow your own pair and own up to what you did
glad it wasn't your kids (if you have any) that were on that bus that were subject to verbal abuse and im so glad it wasn't your face that the man threatened to put his bottle in and that you weren't put in that situation to have had a split second to make a decision on what to do.
Molly you know I have a grown up son and you also know that I am fully aware of how Nigel can be. Like I said I'd much rather have. Him looking out for me but I don't think he is being completely honest with you otherwise the unions would support him. He has also damaged his chances in a tribunal with this story and the further stories quoted on facebook today. Why should other people be named and shamed in something he himself orchestrated.
[quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mbbuses[/bold] wrote: I've known Nigel for many years and he has always had a temper and shirt fuse. I've seen him snap with drivers. In respect if his job I'd always want him on my side if I had an issue but on this occasion anybody who really believes he has been hard done by should deal with this via the right channels. If he had such a strong case the unions would support and pay for the tribunal but they like management have seen the CCTV as Nigel himself has and could not justify defending him. I wish you well in your future Nigel but grow your own pair and own up to what you did[/p][/quote]glad it wasn't your kids (if you have any) that were on that bus that were subject to verbal abuse and im so glad it wasn't your face that the man threatened to put his bottle in and that you weren't put in that situation to have had a split second to make a decision on what to do.[/p][/quote]Molly you know I have a grown up son and you also know that I am fully aware of how Nigel can be. Like I said I'd much rather have. Him looking out for me but I don't think he is being completely honest with you otherwise the unions would support him. He has also damaged his chances in a tribunal with this story and the further stories quoted on facebook today. Why should other people be named and shamed in something he himself orchestrated. Mbbuses
  • Score: 10

8:49pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mthew says...

Mbbuses wrote:
mthew wrote:
Mbbuses wrote:
I've known Nigel for many years and he has always had a temper and shirt fuse. I've seen him snap with drivers. In respect if his job I'd always want him on my side if I had an issue but on this occasion anybody who really believes he has been hard done by should deal with this via the right channels. If he had such a strong case the unions would support and pay for the tribunal but they like management have seen the CCTV as Nigel himself has and could not justify defending him. I wish you well in your future Nigel but grow your own pair and own up to what you did
glad it wasn't your kids (if you have any) that were on that bus that were subject to verbal abuse and im so glad it wasn't your face that the man threatened to put his bottle in and that you weren't put in that situation to have had a split second to make a decision on what to do.
Molly you know I have a grown up son and you also know that I am fully aware of how Nigel can be. Like I said I'd much rather have. Him looking out for me but I don't think he is being completely honest with you otherwise the unions would support him. He has also damaged his chances in a tribunal with this story and the further stories quoted on facebook today. Why should other people be named and shamed in something he himself orchestrated.
Mbbuses....I have no idea who you are as there's too many people on here hiding behind their names...but you obviously know me...please don't insult me by implying that my husband is lying and that he was the only one to blame in this. The whole point of this is to highlight the fact that B and H had no duty of care to any one on that bus that day and the way he was treated afterwards by just being brushed aside with no care from the company.
[quote][p][bold]Mbbuses[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mbbuses[/bold] wrote: I've known Nigel for many years and he has always had a temper and shirt fuse. I've seen him snap with drivers. In respect if his job I'd always want him on my side if I had an issue but on this occasion anybody who really believes he has been hard done by should deal with this via the right channels. If he had such a strong case the unions would support and pay for the tribunal but they like management have seen the CCTV as Nigel himself has and could not justify defending him. I wish you well in your future Nigel but grow your own pair and own up to what you did[/p][/quote]glad it wasn't your kids (if you have any) that were on that bus that were subject to verbal abuse and im so glad it wasn't your face that the man threatened to put his bottle in and that you weren't put in that situation to have had a split second to make a decision on what to do.[/p][/quote]Molly you know I have a grown up son and you also know that I am fully aware of how Nigel can be. Like I said I'd much rather have. Him looking out for me but I don't think he is being completely honest with you otherwise the unions would support him. He has also damaged his chances in a tribunal with this story and the further stories quoted on facebook today. Why should other people be named and shamed in something he himself orchestrated.[/p][/quote]Mbbuses....I have no idea who you are as there's too many people on here hiding behind their names...but you obviously know me...please don't insult me by implying that my husband is lying and that he was the only one to blame in this. The whole point of this is to highlight the fact that B and H had no duty of care to any one on that bus that day and the way he was treated afterwards by just being brushed aside with no care from the company. mthew
  • Score: 2

9:07pm Mon 10 Mar 14

hovian says...

what a dreadful company this and how cowardly for the managing director to hide by this “Issues of data protection and confidentiality" ****.....
what a dreadful company this and how cowardly for the managing director to hide by this “Issues of data protection and confidentiality" ****..... hovian
  • Score: 7

9:08pm Mon 10 Mar 14

holly1977 says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
made up wrote:
Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make.
Good luck in what you do next Nigel.
in this day and age......we know that if you place an hand on a person .....it is classed.......BY LAW as assault I know that Nigel Thews actions were, in his, and many others eyes, good, we must remember that we cannot go around grabbing people and removing them from anywhere.........sec

urity guards have to be trained and licenced to restrain shoplifters etc....I feel that he is to blame for the position that he is in...............
cookie_brighton - you are wrong about use of force and being 'trained and licensed' .. Anyone can use Force. The legislation that the police use is no different in making an arrest, than that of an employee stopping a shoplifter. Section 3 Criminal Law Act. you will see that there is no mention of being licensed or trained. Its all down to how YOU perceive the threat and that you use' reasonable' force to stop a criminal offence or make an arrest (whether citizen or police arrest). You do need to be licensed to be a security guard as an occupation however, but anyone can use force in the prevention and detection of crime..if its reasonable..that is the LAW
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]made up[/bold] wrote: Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make. Good luck in what you do next Nigel.[/p][/quote]in this day and age......we know that if you place an hand on a person .....it is classed.......BY LAW as assault I know that Nigel Thews actions were, in his, and many others eyes, good, we must remember that we cannot go around grabbing people and removing them from anywhere.........sec urity guards have to be trained and licenced to restrain shoplifters etc....I feel that he is to blame for the position that he is in...............[/p][/quote]cookie_brighton - you are wrong about use of force and being 'trained and licensed' .. Anyone can use Force. The legislation that the police use is no different in making an arrest, than that of an employee stopping a shoplifter. Section 3 Criminal Law Act. you will see that there is no mention of being licensed or trained. Its all down to how YOU perceive the threat and that you use' reasonable' force to stop a criminal offence or make an arrest (whether citizen or police arrest). You do need to be licensed to be a security guard as an occupation however, but anyone can use force in the prevention and detection of crime..if its reasonable..that is the LAW holly1977
  • Score: 8

9:17pm Mon 10 Mar 14

big blonde mumma says...

I have known nigel for many years, firstly if he belonged to the union and they didn't support him, then that says it all, also he is a big headed, two faced man, who will stab colleagues and friends in the back at the drop of a hat. people are not allowed to have their own opinions when talking with him, its his way or the high way. This has been a long time coming but it has now, and the bus company and passengers are now well out of his grasp, and that is a good thing.
I have known nigel for many years, firstly if he belonged to the union and they didn't support him, then that says it all, also he is a big headed, two faced man, who will stab colleagues and friends in the back at the drop of a hat. people are not allowed to have their own opinions when talking with him, its his way or the high way. This has been a long time coming but it has now, and the bus company and passengers are now well out of his grasp, and that is a good thing. big blonde mumma
  • Score: 7

9:32pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Withdean-er says...

holly1977 wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
made up wrote:
Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make.
Good luck in what you do next Nigel.
in this day and age......we know that if you place an hand on a person .....it is classed.......BY LAW as assault I know that Nigel Thews actions were, in his, and many others eyes, good, we must remember that we cannot go around grabbing people and removing them from anywhere.........sec


urity guards have to be trained and licenced to restrain shoplifters etc....I feel that he is to blame for the position that he is in...............
cookie_brighton - you are wrong about use of force and being 'trained and licensed' .. Anyone can use Force. The legislation that the police use is no different in making an arrest, than that of an employee stopping a shoplifter. Section 3 Criminal Law Act. you will see that there is no mention of being licensed or trained. Its all down to how YOU perceive the threat and that you use' reasonable' force to stop a criminal offence or make an arrest (whether citizen or police arrest). You do need to be licensed to be a security guard as an occupation however, but anyone can use force in the prevention and detection of crime..if its reasonable..that is the LAW
Thank you for giving us the legal facts, rather than the tripe from contributors who tried to disguise their biased guess about that law, with false authority ("not allowed in any way to place a hand on anyone thesedays and he crossed that red line" said the barrack-room lawyer). In this case, the law makes sense, reasonable force can by used by anyone.
[quote][p][bold]holly1977[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]made up[/bold] wrote: Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make. Good luck in what you do next Nigel.[/p][/quote]in this day and age......we know that if you place an hand on a person .....it is classed.......BY LAW as assault I know that Nigel Thews actions were, in his, and many others eyes, good, we must remember that we cannot go around grabbing people and removing them from anywhere.........sec urity guards have to be trained and licenced to restrain shoplifters etc....I feel that he is to blame for the position that he is in...............[/p][/quote]cookie_brighton - you are wrong about use of force and being 'trained and licensed' .. Anyone can use Force. The legislation that the police use is no different in making an arrest, than that of an employee stopping a shoplifter. Section 3 Criminal Law Act. you will see that there is no mention of being licensed or trained. Its all down to how YOU perceive the threat and that you use' reasonable' force to stop a criminal offence or make an arrest (whether citizen or police arrest). You do need to be licensed to be a security guard as an occupation however, but anyone can use force in the prevention and detection of crime..if its reasonable..that is the LAW[/p][/quote]Thank you for giving us the legal facts, rather than the tripe from contributors who tried to disguise their biased guess about that law, with false authority ("not allowed in any way to place a hand on anyone thesedays and he crossed that red line" said the barrack-room lawyer). In this case, the law makes sense, reasonable force can by used by anyone. Withdean-er
  • Score: 7

9:34pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mthew says...

big blonde mumma wrote:
I have known nigel for many years, firstly if he belonged to the union and they didn't support him, then that says it all, also he is a big headed, two faced man, who will stab colleagues and friends in the back at the drop of a hat. people are not allowed to have their own opinions when talking with him, its his way or the high way. This has been a long time coming but it has now, and the bus company and passengers are now well out of his grasp, and that is a good thing.
Good job it wasn't your kids and your face that was being threatened then isn't it..............
[quote][p][bold]big blonde mumma[/bold] wrote: I have known nigel for many years, firstly if he belonged to the union and they didn't support him, then that says it all, also he is a big headed, two faced man, who will stab colleagues and friends in the back at the drop of a hat. people are not allowed to have their own opinions when talking with him, its his way or the high way. This has been a long time coming but it has now, and the bus company and passengers are now well out of his grasp, and that is a good thing.[/p][/quote]Good job it wasn't your kids and your face that was being threatened then isn't it.............. mthew
  • Score: -7

9:36pm Mon 10 Mar 14

BrightonHoveboy says...

The bus company are trying to remove everyone who has over two years experience apparently and replace them wih new drivers who have to stay for two years under contract or pay for the driving course I think. So, all drivers are looking after themselves only. The management are a disgrace
The bus company are trying to remove everyone who has over two years experience apparently and replace them wih new drivers who have to stay for two years under contract or pay for the driving course I think. So, all drivers are looking after themselves only. The management are a disgrace BrightonHoveboy
  • Score: 13

9:44pm Mon 10 Mar 14

big blonde mumma says...

mthew wrote:
big blonde mumma wrote:
I have known nigel for many years, firstly if he belonged to the union and they didn't support him, then that says it all, also he is a big headed, two faced man, who will stab colleagues and friends in the back at the drop of a hat. people are not allowed to have their own opinions when talking with him, its his way or the high way. This has been a long time coming but it has now, and the bus company and passengers are now well out of his grasp, and that is a good thing.
Good job it wasn't your kids and your face that was being threatened then isn't it..............
Firstly I have no children and secondly we all know its true, upset many of people and thinks he could get away with it, now maybe we can all work and live in peace knowing he is not lurking for information to use against others.
[quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]big blonde mumma[/bold] wrote: I have known nigel for many years, firstly if he belonged to the union and they didn't support him, then that says it all, also he is a big headed, two faced man, who will stab colleagues and friends in the back at the drop of a hat. people are not allowed to have their own opinions when talking with him, its his way or the high way. This has been a long time coming but it has now, and the bus company and passengers are now well out of his grasp, and that is a good thing.[/p][/quote]Good job it wasn't your kids and your face that was being threatened then isn't it..............[/p][/quote]Firstly I have no children and secondly we all know its true, upset many of people and thinks he could get away with it, now maybe we can all work and live in peace knowing he is not lurking for information to use against others. big blonde mumma
  • Score: 6

9:53pm Mon 10 Mar 14

mthew says...

Oh people are so childish and being cryptic about their comments here and some obviously think that they Nigel orchestrated all this himself and has lied to me and everyone, my answer is don't hide behind your user id and grow a pair. Most of the drivers at B&H had the utmost respect for Nigel and are shocked that this has happened, as am I. But the whole point of this story was to highlight the duty if care and the fact that he sat at home for 5 whole days before getting any contact from them and then that was from a lacky that had to deliver a pack of paperwork. Not even one phone call to ask how he was just a "you've been injured in the course of your work, but we don't care" attitude. Nigel didn't break the law and was not prosecuted by anyone. He asserted his statutory right to defend himself albeit the company decided that it was improper. If he hadn't been injured then the CCTV wouldn't have even been looked at and everyone knows that.
Oh people are so childish and being cryptic about their comments here and some obviously think that they Nigel orchestrated all this himself and has lied to me and everyone, my answer is don't hide behind your user id and grow a pair. Most of the drivers at B&H had the utmost respect for Nigel and are shocked that this has happened, as am I. But the whole point of this story was to highlight the duty if care and the fact that he sat at home for 5 whole days before getting any contact from them and then that was from a lacky that had to deliver a pack of paperwork. Not even one phone call to ask how he was just a "you've been injured in the course of your work, but we don't care" attitude. Nigel didn't break the law and was not prosecuted by anyone. He asserted his statutory right to defend himself albeit the company decided that it was improper. If he hadn't been injured then the CCTV wouldn't have even been looked at and everyone knows that. mthew
  • Score: -3

10:00pm Mon 10 Mar 14

birthofanorange says...

There certainly appears to be conflicting opinions here - for a change!
With luck, the tribunal will be able to sort the wheat from the chaff and all the speculation/rumours will be laid to rest.
I assume Mr. Thew has set this in motion?
There certainly appears to be conflicting opinions here - for a change! With luck, the tribunal will be able to sort the wheat from the chaff and all the speculation/rumours will be laid to rest. I assume Mr. Thew has set this in motion? birthofanorange
  • Score: 5

10:15pm Mon 10 Mar 14

S Avery. says...

We did post in our names but you had Zara comment removed ... So please don.t insult all of us Molly .. I never even said nowt bad but I could .. What is your point in all this apart from people have their own opinions on Nigel temper your losing a fighting battle .. I don.t see how this is gonna help your case personally
We did post in our names but you had Zara comment removed ... So please don.t insult all of us Molly .. I never even said nowt bad but I could .. What is your point in all this apart from people have their own opinions on Nigel temper your losing a fighting battle .. I don.t see how this is gonna help your case personally S Avery.
  • Score: 3

10:23pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Brighton Bill says...

mthew wrote:
Oh people are so childish and being cryptic about their comments here and some obviously think that they Nigel orchestrated all this himself and has lied to me and everyone, my answer is don't hide behind your user id and grow a pair. Most of the drivers at B&H had the utmost respect for Nigel and are shocked that this has happened, as am I. But the whole point of this story was to highlight the duty if care and the fact that he sat at home for 5 whole days before getting any contact from them and then that was from a lacky that had to deliver a pack of paperwork. Not even one phone call to ask how he was just a "you've been injured in the course of your work, but we don't care" attitude. Nigel didn't break the law and was not prosecuted by anyone. He asserted his statutory right to defend himself albeit the company decided that it was improper. If he hadn't been injured then the CCTV wouldn't have even been looked at and everyone knows that.
Excellent comment, come Union Rep get your finger out and support your member, show him it is worth being a union member..
[quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: Oh people are so childish and being cryptic about their comments here and some obviously think that they Nigel orchestrated all this himself and has lied to me and everyone, my answer is don't hide behind your user id and grow a pair. Most of the drivers at B&H had the utmost respect for Nigel and are shocked that this has happened, as am I. But the whole point of this story was to highlight the duty if care and the fact that he sat at home for 5 whole days before getting any contact from them and then that was from a lacky that had to deliver a pack of paperwork. Not even one phone call to ask how he was just a "you've been injured in the course of your work, but we don't care" attitude. Nigel didn't break the law and was not prosecuted by anyone. He asserted his statutory right to defend himself albeit the company decided that it was improper. If he hadn't been injured then the CCTV wouldn't have even been looked at and everyone knows that.[/p][/quote]Excellent comment, come Union Rep get your finger out and support your member, show him it is worth being a union member.. Brighton Bill
  • Score: -2

11:14pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Levent says...

This story makes PERFECT SENSE..... in lefty Brighton.

Of course the driver gets sacked for protecting everyone, of course
the scumbag has the last laugh!!
This story makes PERFECT SENSE..... in lefty Brighton. Of course the driver gets sacked for protecting everyone, of course the scumbag has the last laugh!! Levent
  • Score: -1

11:56pm Mon 10 Mar 14

brightonguy895 says...

This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.
This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due. brightonguy895
  • Score: -9

12:17am Tue 11 Mar 14

Falmer Wizard says...

The company send out a supervisor to assist a driver and children who are concerned with the actions of a drunk,when he removes the drunk they sack him!,what was he supposed to do????.
There are an increasing number of drunks/drug takers around these days who will take notice that the Bus Company will sack staff who try to protect other staff and passengers which will result in more of these type of incidents.
I hope that the parents of the children will get together to support Mr.Thew
The company send out a supervisor to assist a driver and children who are concerned with the actions of a drunk,when he removes the drunk they sack him!,what was he supposed to do????. There are an increasing number of drunks/drug takers around these days who will take notice that the Bus Company will sack staff who try to protect other staff and passengers which will result in more of these type of incidents. I hope that the parents of the children will get together to support Mr.Thew Falmer Wizard
  • Score: 1

1:24am Tue 11 Mar 14

Brightonandhoveresident says...

brightonguy895 wrote:
This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.
I've actually emailed the company earlier on tonight to complain about something totally unrelated to this. It actually made me do a search of the company on the Argus website as I was interested to see if what I had complained about was anywhere else. Anyway it wasn't but I found this. I am absolutely shocked to read this. Surely if he had been in the wrong the police would have prosecuted him yet its the other chap that was.
If that wasn't true then I should think the Argus wouldn't print it. There seems to be a lot of personal comments on here too which is why I have chosen this one. I may be getting on a bit now (lived a lot) but I'm sure the article said he was a Supervisor so how can he be this driver who was supposed to have got this guy by the throat. Unless he was a driver too.
I'm getting confused by the whole thing. I suspect however that brightonguy895 is not correct in what he says about this Supervisor Thew as I would imagine he would have been prosecuted for strangling someone.
Is there a bit of Character defamation going on here maybe??? looks a bit deliberate to me. I will now see how the company deal with my complaint.
[quote][p][bold]brightonguy895[/bold] wrote: This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.[/p][/quote]I've actually emailed the company earlier on tonight to complain about something totally unrelated to this. It actually made me do a search of the company on the Argus website as I was interested to see if what I had complained about was anywhere else. Anyway it wasn't but I found this. I am absolutely shocked to read this. Surely if he had been in the wrong the police would have prosecuted him yet its the other chap that was. If that wasn't true then I should think the Argus wouldn't print it. There seems to be a lot of personal comments on here too which is why I have chosen this one. I may be getting on a bit now (lived a lot) but I'm sure the article said he was a Supervisor so how can he be this driver who was supposed to have got this guy by the throat. Unless he was a driver too. I'm getting confused by the whole thing. I suspect however that brightonguy895 is not correct in what he says about this Supervisor Thew as I would imagine he would have been prosecuted for strangling someone. Is there a bit of Character defamation going on here maybe??? looks a bit deliberate to me. I will now see how the company deal with my complaint. Brightonandhoveresident
  • Score: 4

1:25am Tue 11 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

As an infrequent passenger, I have only met this man twice, each time he boarded the bus to check out our tickets, I found him to be very abrupt, agressive even if you were a bit slow in answering his request, as I was, being deep into a book I was reading at the time, although I found that he was not the only inspector/supervisor that was that way inclined, I remember a rather tubby female that was just as bad.
However, the customer in this case, was charged with, pleaded guilty to, and was fined for using threatening words, so we have one of them using threatening words, and one of them getting a badly broken ankle, that tells me that one of them was being excessively agressive.
I have my thoughts on which one.
As an infrequent passenger, I have only met this man twice, each time he boarded the bus to check out our tickets, I found him to be very abrupt, agressive even if you were a bit slow in answering his request, as I was, being deep into a book I was reading at the time, although I found that he was not the only inspector/supervisor that was that way inclined, I remember a rather tubby female that was just as bad. However, the customer in this case, was charged with, pleaded guilty to, and was fined for using threatening words, so we have one of them using threatening words, and one of them getting a badly broken ankle, that tells me that one of them was being excessively agressive. I have my thoughts on which one. Man of steel
  • Score: 5

6:49am Tue 11 Mar 14

mthew says...

brightonguy895 wrote:
This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.
He would have a hard job getting out of his cab as he hasn't driven a bus for at least 10 years, and he wouldn't put his hands on anyone unless he felt threatened.
[quote][p][bold]brightonguy895[/bold] wrote: This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.[/p][/quote]He would have a hard job getting out of his cab as he hasn't driven a bus for at least 10 years, and he wouldn't put his hands on anyone unless he felt threatened. mthew
  • Score: 3

7:02am Tue 11 Mar 14

BURIRAM says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
Mimseycal In response to your comment does it matter what the time frame between incidents was. This man clearly hasn't changed his aggressive ways.
Have You
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: Mimseycal In response to your comment does it matter what the time frame between incidents was. This man clearly hasn't changed his aggressive ways.[/p][/quote]Have You BURIRAM
  • Score: -1

7:17am Tue 11 Mar 14

mruno says...

He said to his doctor, "broke my ankle in 3 different places," doctor says "don't go to these places,"
He said to his doctor, "broke my ankle in 3 different places," doctor says "don't go to these places," mruno
  • Score: 15

7:38am Tue 11 Mar 14

BURIRAM says...

brightonguy895 wrote:
This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.
Supervisors don't come out of cabins and why would you get on a bus with a dog and no lead. Stupid comment
[quote][p][bold]brightonguy895[/bold] wrote: This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.[/p][/quote]Supervisors don't come out of cabins and why would you get on a bus with a dog and no lead. Stupid comment BURIRAM
  • Score: 6

7:41am Tue 11 Mar 14

Old Ale Man says...

spa301 wrote:
Presumably there is CCTV footage to enable the whole incident to be viewed and judge if he used excessive force?
One needs to take quick action with a threatening pi*head with a bottle in his hand. God only knows what could have happened if he had been left to continue travelling with children on the bus. Shame on you Martin Harris hiding behind the data protection bolox. get a grip of this situation and reward Mr. Thew with his job back and an award, Roger French would have sorted this in no time at all.
[quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: Presumably there is CCTV footage to enable the whole incident to be viewed and judge if he used excessive force?[/p][/quote]One needs to take quick action with a threatening pi*head with a bottle in his hand. God only knows what could have happened if he had been left to continue travelling with children on the bus. Shame on you Martin Harris hiding behind the data protection bolox. get a grip of this situation and reward Mr. Thew with his job back and an award, Roger French would have sorted this in no time at all. Old Ale Man
  • Score: 6

7:48am Tue 11 Mar 14

randomthoughts says...

Bloody ridiculous. Give the bloke his job back immediately. I wish I had the balls to handle it the way he did
Bloody ridiculous. Give the bloke his job back immediately. I wish I had the balls to handle it the way he did randomthoughts
  • Score: 5

9:15am Tue 11 Mar 14

hoveguyactually says...

He should be given a medal for his bravery - not the sack.
He should be given a medal for his bravery - not the sack. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 6

11:07am Tue 11 Mar 14

Legion1000 says...

what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.
what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop. Legion1000
  • Score: 3

11:08am Tue 11 Mar 14

Legion1000 says...

sorry that should say, the police have to prove your guilty.
sorry that should say, the police have to prove your guilty. Legion1000
  • Score: 1

11:40am Tue 11 Mar 14

whatevernext2013 says...

brightonguy895 wrote:
This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.
oh dear just another dreamer making up a story ,you cant take a dog on a bus with out a lead ,in fact you can only take a dog on a bus if the driver allows you too ,a driver can just refuse to take it
[quote][p][bold]brightonguy895[/bold] wrote: This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.[/p][/quote]oh dear just another dreamer making up a story ,you cant take a dog on a bus with out a lead ,in fact you can only take a dog on a bus if the driver allows you too ,a driver can just refuse to take it whatevernext2013
  • Score: 5

11:45am Tue 11 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

I'd like to remind everybody on here that the passenger was only charged with using threatening words, he was not charged with being drunk and disorderly, or any other public order offence, he was not charged with being in possesion of a deadly weapon, i.e. a glass bottle, with the intent to cause harm, he was not charged with behaviour where the intention is specifically to cause harm, or with behaviour that is likely to cause harm, or any of the other weirdly worded offences in British law,
He was charged with using the wrong words during an arguement, that's all.
I'd like to remind everybody on here that the passenger was only charged with using threatening words, he was not charged with being drunk and disorderly, or any other public order offence, he was not charged with being in possesion of a deadly weapon, i.e. a glass bottle, with the intent to cause harm, he was not charged with behaviour where the intention is specifically to cause harm, or with behaviour that is likely to cause harm, or any of the other weirdly worded offences in British law, He was charged with using the wrong words during an arguement, that's all. Man of steel
  • Score: 1

11:49am Tue 11 Mar 14

whatevernext2013 says...

BrightonHoveboy wrote:
The bus company are trying to remove everyone who has over two years experience apparently and replace them wih new drivers who have to stay for two years under contract or pay for the driving course I think. So, all drivers are looking after themselves only. The management are a disgrace
pmsl the drivers union members voted that in ,too shaft new drivers and get themselves a pay rise ,so the drivers/union sold out newcomers for there own ends ,i bet there will be very few new drivers joining the union ,,im glad to hear that long serving drivers are looking over there shoulder ,a union should be for all and not just a few long term drivers
[quote][p][bold]BrightonHoveboy[/bold] wrote: The bus company are trying to remove everyone who has over two years experience apparently and replace them wih new drivers who have to stay for two years under contract or pay for the driving course I think. So, all drivers are looking after themselves only. The management are a disgrace[/p][/quote]pmsl the drivers union members voted that in ,too shaft new drivers and get themselves a pay rise ,so the drivers/union sold out newcomers for there own ends ,i bet there will be very few new drivers joining the union ,,im glad to hear that long serving drivers are looking over there shoulder ,a union should be for all and not just a few long term drivers whatevernext2013
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Tue 11 Mar 14

sarah l says...

Tut tut Brighton and hove busses
Tut tut Brighton and hove busses sarah l
  • Score: 1

1:49pm Tue 11 Mar 14

ThinkBrighton says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
NickBtn wrote:
The bus company seem to be scoring quite an own goal here. Opening themselves up to legal action from Mr Thews for unfair dismissal and, as they are saying he did something wrong, from the drunk.

Passengers should be protected from unruly behaviour on buses and Mr Thew was right to get involved. Presumably other supervisors and drivers now will think twice about protecting passengers for fear of losing their jobs too. Is that really helping us to choose to use buses?
unfair dismissal...how do you come to that conclusion..........

Mr Thews admitted grabbing hold of a member of the public........whethe

r he was drunk or even threatened Mr Thew is not an issue...Mr Thew ADMITTED that he grabbed him.......this is against the policy of the company....gross misconduct.....so explain how it is unfair dismissal........I Laugh at your mention of legal action.
I laugh at your stupid lack of facts, this man was being threatened by a man with a bottle, and this bus company employee was doing his job and not to forget, was trying to placate a drunk with a weapon, a court case would be very interesting - would the bus company state that their employees should accept their fate by being struck with a glass bottle, rather than protect themselves and the children on the bus by removing him from the bus using whatever force was required, I don't think so!
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: The bus company seem to be scoring quite an own goal here. Opening themselves up to legal action from Mr Thews for unfair dismissal and, as they are saying he did something wrong, from the drunk. Passengers should be protected from unruly behaviour on buses and Mr Thew was right to get involved. Presumably other supervisors and drivers now will think twice about protecting passengers for fear of losing their jobs too. Is that really helping us to choose to use buses?[/p][/quote]unfair dismissal...how do you come to that conclusion.......... Mr Thews admitted grabbing hold of a member of the public........whethe r he was drunk or even threatened Mr Thew is not an issue...Mr Thew ADMITTED that he grabbed him.......this is against the policy of the company....gross misconduct.....so explain how it is unfair dismissal........I Laugh at your mention of legal action.[/p][/quote]I laugh at your stupid lack of facts, this man was being threatened by a man with a bottle, and this bus company employee was doing his job and not to forget, was trying to placate a drunk with a weapon, a court case would be very interesting - would the bus company state that their employees should accept their fate by being struck with a glass bottle, rather than protect themselves and the children on the bus by removing him from the bus using whatever force was required, I don't think so! ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 2

2:23pm Tue 11 Mar 14

ARMANA says...

Andy R wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
I don't normally support strikes but maybe all the drivers would like to strike for a day. That should soon bring the coward Harris to his senses and the city to a standstill.
Well yes. Given that Mr Thew will have to find over £1000 to bring an unfair dismissal claim (thanks to Failing Grayling), his workmates are his best hope. They'd certainly have my support.
Im sure Mr. Thew can sleep better at night ,knowing your behind them,!!!
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I don't normally support strikes but maybe all the drivers would like to strike for a day. That should soon bring the coward Harris to his senses and the city to a standstill.[/p][/quote]Well yes. Given that Mr Thew will have to find over £1000 to bring an unfair dismissal claim (thanks to Failing Grayling), his workmates are his best hope. They'd certainly have my support.[/p][/quote]Im sure Mr. Thew can sleep better at night ,knowing your behind them,!!! ARMANA
  • Score: 4

3:29pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Boloney-marshal says...

What a rubbish bus company - no wonder you can always find vacancies on their web site for bus drivers, if this is how their staff are treated.
This supervisor IS a brave man and not acting for any other reason than the safety of the public. Doesn't seventeen years working for a company mean anything these days? guess not
What a rubbish bus company - no wonder you can always find vacancies on their web site for bus drivers, if this is how their staff are treated. This supervisor IS a brave man and not acting for any other reason than the safety of the public. Doesn't seventeen years working for a company mean anything these days? guess not Boloney-marshal
  • Score: 4

3:33pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Brighton Bill says...

brightonguy895 wrote:
This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.
The Dog is okay it's pathetic owners like yourself who are not prepared to obey rules & regs and the law, you need the lead round your neck not the dogs, cretin comes to mind.
[quote][p][bold]brightonguy895[/bold] wrote: This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.[/p][/quote]The Dog is okay it's pathetic owners like yourself who are not prepared to obey rules & regs and the law, you need the lead round your neck not the dogs, cretin comes to mind. Brighton Bill
  • Score: 3

5:36pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Admiral of the Fleet says...

?
? Admiral of the Fleet
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Tue 11 Mar 14

mthew says...

Man of steel wrote:
I'd like to remind everybody on here that the passenger was only charged with using threatening words, he was not charged with being drunk and disorderly, or any other public order offence, he was not charged with being in possesion of a deadly weapon, i.e. a glass bottle, with the intent to cause harm, he was not charged with behaviour where the intention is specifically to cause harm, or with behaviour that is likely to cause harm, or any of the other weirdly worded offences in British law,
He was charged with using the wrong words during an arguement, that's all.
I don't think so, I have a copy of the charges here and it clearly states that is was using threatening words and behaviour to cause harassment, harm or distress....unfortun
ately the argus have omitted this part which can be proved and I am quite happy to....at the end of the day he was charged and pleaded guilty to this so I suggest if these comments are from a certain special constable I would be very careful on what i say........
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: I'd like to remind everybody on here that the passenger was only charged with using threatening words, he was not charged with being drunk and disorderly, or any other public order offence, he was not charged with being in possesion of a deadly weapon, i.e. a glass bottle, with the intent to cause harm, he was not charged with behaviour where the intention is specifically to cause harm, or with behaviour that is likely to cause harm, or any of the other weirdly worded offences in British law, He was charged with using the wrong words during an arguement, that's all.[/p][/quote]I don't think so, I have a copy of the charges here and it clearly states that is was using threatening words and behaviour to cause harassment, harm or distress....unfortun ately the argus have omitted this part which can be proved and I am quite happy to....at the end of the day he was charged and pleaded guilty to this so I suggest if these comments are from a certain special constable I would be very careful on what i say........ mthew
  • Score: 1

6:04pm Tue 11 Mar 14

mthew says...

mruno wrote:
He said to his doctor, "broke my ankle in 3 different places," doctor says "don't go to these places,"
Love it thank you........for making me chuckle
[quote][p][bold]mruno[/bold] wrote: He said to his doctor, "broke my ankle in 3 different places," doctor says "don't go to these places,"[/p][/quote]Love it thank you........for making me chuckle mthew
  • Score: 3

6:06pm Tue 11 Mar 14

large1 says...

Don't think Mr Thew is a goody two shoes, I'VE seen him put his hands around an innocent teenagers throat and pushed him off the bus
Don't think Mr Thew is a goody two shoes, I'VE seen him put his hands around an innocent teenagers throat and pushed him off the bus large1
  • Score: 1

6:09pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Admiral of the Fleet says...

Having also read the comments attacking Mr Thew i believe that the people who are attacking him personally are clearly people who use to be friends with them and are obviously jealous of their lifes as Mr and Mrs Thew seem to be hard working and taxpaying couple and the people who seem to make personal attacks are clearly on benefits feigned by a made up or exaggerated health issue to gain state handouts and allow them to do activities which they have said they can know longer do but clear can.
Having also read the comments attacking Mr Thew i believe that the people who are attacking him personally are clearly people who use to be friends with them and are obviously jealous of their lifes as Mr and Mrs Thew seem to be hard working and taxpaying couple and the people who seem to make personal attacks are clearly on benefits feigned by a made up or exaggerated health issue to gain state handouts and allow them to do activities which they have said they can know longer do but clear can. Admiral of the Fleet
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Tue 11 Mar 14

DCCCCCC says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
About time this changed. The perpetrator always wins.
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]About time this changed. The perpetrator always wins. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 2

6:16pm Tue 11 Mar 14

DCCCCCC says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
made up wrote:
Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make.
Good luck in what you do next Nigel.
in this day and age......we know that if you place an hand on a person .....it is classed.......BY LAW as assault I know that Nigel Thews actions were, in his, and many others eyes, good, we must remember that we cannot go around grabbing people and removing them from anywhere.........sec

urity guards have to be trained and licenced to restrain shoplifters etc....I feel that he is to blame for the position that he is in...............
I wonder if you would still be saying this if it were your son/daughter/partner
/mother/father who were under threat!
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]made up[/bold] wrote: Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make. Good luck in what you do next Nigel.[/p][/quote]in this day and age......we know that if you place an hand on a person .....it is classed.......BY LAW as assault I know that Nigel Thews actions were, in his, and many others eyes, good, we must remember that we cannot go around grabbing people and removing them from anywhere.........sec urity guards have to be trained and licenced to restrain shoplifters etc....I feel that he is to blame for the position that he is in...............[/p][/quote]I wonder if you would still be saying this if it were your son/daughter/partner /mother/father who were under threat! DCCCCCC
  • Score: 1

6:19pm Tue 11 Mar 14

mthew says...

Yes me again Mr Thew's wife (I'm not afraid to reveal my identity) after reading all these comments, it is nice to have support from genuine people, thank you. For all you that seem to have had previous dealings with my husband and imply that he is aggressive, abusive, 2 faced and has obvious violent tendencies.......I would just like to point out that if you had fallen victim to this like you say, why didn't you report him the police as surely this would be the most sensible thing to have done or report him to the bus company and why has he never ever been charged by the police for any such behaviour or been disciplined before.....I will tell you why because it is either all in your head or it is because you have an axe to grind because buses have had CCTV on them for at least 10 years and my husband has not been a driver for 14 years so wouldn't have been jumping out of cabins.
Yes me again Mr Thew's wife (I'm not afraid to reveal my identity) after reading all these comments, it is nice to have support from genuine people, thank you. For all you that seem to have had previous dealings with my husband and imply that he is aggressive, abusive, 2 faced and has obvious violent tendencies.......I would just like to point out that if you had fallen victim to this like you say, why didn't you report him the police as surely this would be the most sensible thing to have done or report him to the bus company and why has he never ever been charged by the police for any such behaviour or been disciplined before.....I will tell you why because it is either all in your head or it is because you have an axe to grind because buses have had CCTV on them for at least 10 years and my husband has not been a driver for 14 years so wouldn't have been jumping out of cabins. mthew
  • Score: 4

6:27pm Tue 11 Mar 14

normal working person says...

The story says that Mr Thew was called to assist. Can i ask what he was therefore expected to do when he got there - other than remove the drunk, by his jumper if necessary ? Surely he wasn't called to simply take all of the passengers off of the bus until the drunk decided to leave the bus of his own free will ? I support Mr Thew. The only question i have is why was the drunk allowed on the bus in the first place ?
The story says that Mr Thew was called to assist. Can i ask what he was therefore expected to do when he got there - other than remove the drunk, by his jumper if necessary ? Surely he wasn't called to simply take all of the passengers off of the bus until the drunk decided to leave the bus of his own free will ? I support Mr Thew. The only question i have is why was the drunk allowed on the bus in the first place ? normal working person
  • Score: 9

6:41pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

Mthew, the article in the Argus clearly states -The customer appeared in court a month later and pleaded guilty to using threatening words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and was fined £37 and ordered to pay costs of £105.- he was not charged with anything else, as I said earlier, he was not charged with being drunk and disorderly, or any other public order offence, he was not charged with being in possesion of a deadly weapon, i.e. a glass bottle, with the intent to cause harm, he was not charged with behaviour where the intention is specifically to cause harm, or with behaviour that is likely to cause harm, or any of the other weirdly worded offences in British law,
If he had done any of those things, he would have been charged with the offences.
And with your mention of a special constable, does this mean that the police had a difference of opinion at the time as well?
Mthew, the article in the Argus clearly states -The customer appeared in court a month later and pleaded guilty to using threatening words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and was fined £37 and ordered to pay costs of £105.- he was not charged with anything else, as I said earlier, he was not charged with being drunk and disorderly, or any other public order offence, he was not charged with being in possesion of a deadly weapon, i.e. a glass bottle, with the intent to cause harm, he was not charged with behaviour where the intention is specifically to cause harm, or with behaviour that is likely to cause harm, or any of the other weirdly worded offences in British law, If he had done any of those things, he would have been charged with the offences. And with your mention of a special constable, does this mean that the police had a difference of opinion at the time as well? Man of steel
  • Score: 4

6:48pm Tue 11 Mar 14

The Real Phil says...

Fight_Back wrote:
I don't normally support strikes but maybe all the drivers would like to strike for a day. That should soon bring the coward Harris to his senses and the city to a standstill.
Better than that would be a passenger strike, removing all school children from B&H buses until the issue is resolved. Sadly, our society doesn't have the get up and go for this type of action.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I don't normally support strikes but maybe all the drivers would like to strike for a day. That should soon bring the coward Harris to his senses and the city to a standstill.[/p][/quote]Better than that would be a passenger strike, removing all school children from B&H buses until the issue is resolved. Sadly, our society doesn't have the get up and go for this type of action. The Real Phil
  • Score: 1

7:02pm Tue 11 Mar 14

scuba1 says...

If I was on that bus I would have been very grateful to have such a protective driver actually !! Wish him well and hope his new bosses appreciate such a good and decent man .
If I was on that bus I would have been very grateful to have such a protective driver actually !! Wish him well and hope his new bosses appreciate such a good and decent man . scuba1
  • Score: 0

8:29pm Tue 11 Mar 14

mthew says...

Man of steel wrote:
Mthew, the article in the Argus clearly states -The customer appeared in court a month later and pleaded guilty to using threatening words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and was fined £37 and ordered to pay costs of £105.- he was not charged with anything else, as I said earlier, he was not charged with being drunk and disorderly, or any other public order offence, he was not charged with being in possesion of a deadly weapon, i.e. a glass bottle, with the intent to cause harm, he was not charged with behaviour where the intention is specifically to cause harm, or with behaviour that is likely to cause harm, or any of the other weirdly worded offences in British law,
If he had done any of those things, he would have been charged with the offences.
And with your mention of a special constable, does this mean that the police had a difference of opinion at the time as well?
As I said the man the police charged the man with using threatening words and behaviour, unfortunately the word behaviour has been omitted from the article, but I can assure you that is the truth, he wasn't charged with drunk and disorderly, which I know both do come under section 5 of the public order act but the definitions of both are very different as you would probably understand and no the police have never had a difference of opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: Mthew, the article in the Argus clearly states -The customer appeared in court a month later and pleaded guilty to using threatening words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and was fined £37 and ordered to pay costs of £105.- he was not charged with anything else, as I said earlier, he was not charged with being drunk and disorderly, or any other public order offence, he was not charged with being in possesion of a deadly weapon, i.e. a glass bottle, with the intent to cause harm, he was not charged with behaviour where the intention is specifically to cause harm, or with behaviour that is likely to cause harm, or any of the other weirdly worded offences in British law, If he had done any of those things, he would have been charged with the offences. And with your mention of a special constable, does this mean that the police had a difference of opinion at the time as well?[/p][/quote]As I said the man the police charged the man with using threatening words and behaviour, unfortunately the word behaviour has been omitted from the article, but I can assure you that is the truth, he wasn't charged with drunk and disorderly, which I know both do come under section 5 of the public order act but the definitions of both are very different as you would probably understand and no the police have never had a difference of opinion. mthew
  • Score: -1

9:06pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

Mthew, then why the disparaging remark about a special, let remind you of what you said.
I suggest if these comments are from a certain special constable I would be very careful on what i say........
Mthew, then why the disparaging remark about a special, let remind you of what you said. I suggest if these comments are from a certain special constable I would be very careful on what i say........ Man of steel
  • Score: 0

9:10pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Buses123 says...

Nigel has only himself to blame he was always aggressive, arrogant and self opinionated
Nigel has only himself to blame he was always aggressive, arrogant and self opinionated Buses123
  • Score: 3

10:54pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Brightonandhoveresident says...

Well on a lighter note I had a reply to my unrelated complaint today and was most impressed with how it was handled.
Well on a lighter note I had a reply to my unrelated complaint today and was most impressed with how it was handled. Brightonandhoveresident
  • Score: 1

7:23am Wed 12 Mar 14

hoveguyactually says...

Martin Harris should resign immediately. He has brought shame on to the bus company.
Martin Harris should resign immediately. He has brought shame on to the bus company. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 8

8:52am Wed 12 Mar 14

Juleyanne says...

I have never seen such a massive reaction to an Argus article! It is 100% clear that the public overwhelmingly are of the opinion B & H buses have made a massive misjudgement in this case against Mr Threw and have dealt with this inappropriately. I do not know Mr Threw, but it is glaringly obvious he was protecting children on board and other passengers including his company's property. It is therefore wholly wrong to dismiss him for procedural issues when he was doing what his passengers would expect, protecting them from a potential danger and ejecting the drunk and unruly passenger on the grounds of foul and aggressive language which could easily escalate into physical violence to other passengers and criminal damage to his employers vehicle. Had this passenger injured or killed a child or older passenger, B & H buses management would have been in the firing line for 'not reacting to potential immediate danger'. This case is grossly unfair and the driver should be reinstated. The obvious intelligent response to this issue would surely be for B & H buses management to review their training of drivers in similar situations and with police advice clearly rewrite guidelines for their drivers for future procedures. The public have voted Mr Harris, surely your customers overwhelming views should warrant a rethink of your approaches to such incidents?
I have never seen such a massive reaction to an Argus article! It is 100% clear that the public overwhelmingly are of the opinion B & H buses have made a massive misjudgement in this case against Mr Threw and have dealt with this inappropriately. I do not know Mr Threw, but it is glaringly obvious he was protecting children on board and other passengers including his company's property. It is therefore wholly wrong to dismiss him for procedural issues when he was doing what his passengers would expect, protecting them from a potential danger and ejecting the drunk and unruly passenger on the grounds of foul and aggressive language which could easily escalate into physical violence to other passengers and criminal damage to his employers vehicle. Had this passenger injured or killed a child or older passenger, B & H buses management would have been in the firing line for 'not reacting to potential immediate danger'. This case is grossly unfair and the driver should be reinstated. The obvious intelligent response to this issue would surely be for B & H buses management to review their training of drivers in similar situations and with police advice clearly rewrite guidelines for their drivers for future procedures. The public have voted Mr Harris, surely your customers overwhelming views should warrant a rethink of your approaches to such incidents? Juleyanne
  • Score: 7

10:07am Wed 12 Mar 14

Nebs says...

Charlotte22 wrote:
Good luck with the petition, all the good it's going to do. This man shouldn't be working with the public, he'd be better placed working as prison officer or something along them lines. Nothing more then a bully
So you think it's OK for him to bully prisoners but not OK to bully you.
[quote][p][bold]Charlotte22[/bold] wrote: Good luck with the petition, all the good it's going to do. This man shouldn't be working with the public, he'd be better placed working as prison officer or something along them lines. Nothing more then a bully[/p][/quote]So you think it's OK for him to bully prisoners but not OK to bully you. Nebs
  • Score: -4

11:19am Wed 12 Mar 14

Buses123 says...

I notice in the picture there is a letter from Unite one of the countries biggest unions. With them behind Mr Thew one would assume he would have got justice. However, perhaps they also realise from the evidence that he has not got a case and therefore his sacking was justified. I also feel that with all this publicity, Mr Thew has shot himself in the foot and from now on any prospective employer is going to see him as a trouble maker and therefore will be unwilling to employ him
I notice in the picture there is a letter from Unite one of the countries biggest unions. With them behind Mr Thew one would assume he would have got justice. However, perhaps they also realise from the evidence that he has not got a case and therefore his sacking was justified. I also feel that with all this publicity, Mr Thew has shot himself in the foot and from now on any prospective employer is going to see him as a trouble maker and therefore will be unwilling to employ him Buses123
  • Score: 10

11:39am Wed 12 Mar 14

Iain_B says...

It is interesting that in less than 500 words, people can be judge and jury, declaring that the wrong decision has been reached. The article says that all of the appeal processes had been exhausted. It could be that there still remains the Industrial Tribunal.

Only for someone who had sat through the hearings, read the documentation and seen all of the evidence would those sort of comments be valid.
It is interesting that in less than 500 words, people can be judge and jury, declaring that the wrong decision has been reached. The article says that all of the appeal processes had been exhausted. It could be that there still remains the Industrial Tribunal. Only for someone who had sat through the hearings, read the documentation and seen all of the evidence would those sort of comments be valid. Iain_B
  • Score: 4

12:30pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ghost bus driver says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
made up wrote:
Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make.
Good luck in what you do next Nigel.
in this day and age......we know that if you place an hand on a person .....it is classed.......BY LAW as assault I know that Nigel Thews actions were, in his, and many others eyes, good, we must remember that we cannot go around grabbing people and removing them from anywhere.........sec

urity guards have to be trained and licenced to restrain shoplifters etc....I feel that he is to blame for the position that he is in...............
Well if that was the case then he'd be on a charge from the police. As it is he is not, so no offence was committed. This is what the police said after seeing the footage. The company are trying to save face, pure and simple.
I would be more than happy to strike if it brought Nigel back.
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]made up[/bold] wrote: Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make. Good luck in what you do next Nigel.[/p][/quote]in this day and age......we know that if you place an hand on a person .....it is classed.......BY LAW as assault I know that Nigel Thews actions were, in his, and many others eyes, good, we must remember that we cannot go around grabbing people and removing them from anywhere.........sec urity guards have to be trained and licenced to restrain shoplifters etc....I feel that he is to blame for the position that he is in...............[/p][/quote]Well if that was the case then he'd be on a charge from the police. As it is he is not, so no offence was committed. This is what the police said after seeing the footage. The company are trying to save face, pure and simple. I would be more than happy to strike if it brought Nigel back. ghost bus driver
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ghost bus driver says...

biker brighton wrote:
i worked there years ago renember nigel good guy .i got spat at one day and was told by my manager what do you expect in this job told me to carry on get over it bad place to work for
I think I know which (ex stagecoach) manager you mean.
[quote][p][bold]biker brighton[/bold] wrote: i worked there years ago renember nigel good guy .i got spat at one day and was told by my manager what do you expect in this job told me to carry on get over it bad place to work for[/p][/quote]I think I know which (ex stagecoach) manager you mean. ghost bus driver
  • Score: 1

12:45pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ghost bus driver says...

Quiterie wrote:
I don't know whether this guy has been unfairly dismissed or not.

What I do know is that we're only getting one side of the story.

The CCTV evidence is crucial in this case. The Appeals panels had access to this evidence whereas we don't.

I'm not a fan of Brighton and Hove Buses at all, but we have no evidence that this guy has been harshly treated.

Perhaps he's already had warnings regarding using excessive force and this was the final straw. As I say we're only getting one side of the story.
No. he had a 17 year unblemished record.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: I don't know whether this guy has been unfairly dismissed or not. What I do know is that we're only getting one side of the story. The CCTV evidence is crucial in this case. The Appeals panels had access to this evidence whereas we don't. I'm not a fan of Brighton and Hove Buses at all, but we have no evidence that this guy has been harshly treated. Perhaps he's already had warnings regarding using excessive force and this was the final straw. As I say we're only getting one side of the story.[/p][/quote]No. he had a 17 year unblemished record. ghost bus driver
  • Score: 4

12:52pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ghost bus driver says...

Legion1000 wrote:
what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.
Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.
[quote][p][bold]Legion1000[/bold] wrote: what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.[/p][/quote]Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well. ghost bus driver
  • Score: 1

12:57pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ghost bus driver says...

Brighton Bill wrote:
brightonguy895 wrote:
This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.
The Dog is okay it's pathetic owners like yourself who are not prepared to obey rules & regs and the law, you need the lead round your neck not the dogs, cretin comes to mind.
There are certain parts of London where that could be arranged (for a fee, of course)
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brightonguy895[/bold] wrote: This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.[/p][/quote]The Dog is okay it's pathetic owners like yourself who are not prepared to obey rules & regs and the law, you need the lead round your neck not the dogs, cretin comes to mind.[/p][/quote]There are certain parts of London where that could be arranged (for a fee, of course) ghost bus driver
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Wed 12 Mar 14

wendy-uk says...

brightonguy895 wrote:
This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.
Got out of his cabin? When was this, he was a supervisor who hadn't driven a bus in 14 years! And by the way, on a lead or not, you have no right to bring a dog on board a bus, it's down to the discretion of the driver. And it's an offence to have an uncontrolled dog on a public highway so suggest you buy a lead forthwith.
[quote][p][bold]brightonguy895[/bold] wrote: This man should not get his job back. He is violent, aggressive and deserves everything he gets. I was getting the bus, I had a dog on me with no lead and he got out of his cabin and attacked me putting his hands round my throat. Its long over due.[/p][/quote]Got out of his cabin? When was this, he was a supervisor who hadn't driven a bus in 14 years! And by the way, on a lead or not, you have no right to bring a dog on board a bus, it's down to the discretion of the driver. And it's an offence to have an uncontrolled dog on a public highway so suggest you buy a lead forthwith. wendy-uk
  • Score: 3

1:18pm Wed 12 Mar 14

truescouser says...

i was on the bus about 15 years ago and these two scumbags were sitting there on the back of the bus with their cans of carlsberg special brew effing and blinding to their heart's content and it was only about 5 pm. i had my two very young kids with me at the time and it was not nice at all - so i asked this lady i was talking to at the time to just watch my kids for a second.went to back of the bus and said (in my very broad scouse accent) 'if you dont shut your mouths right now i'm gonna knock the tow of you out !'.funnily enough, it worked a treat and they even apologised as they got off the bus. cant stand scruffy scumbag druggies and drunks intimidating people cos they think people wont say anything.that said some brighton and hove bus drivers are right dickheads as well. just saying. oh and anyone who wants to remonstrate with me can kiss my arse cos you obviously haven't the guts to confront these so-called people.seems like and excuse for b & h buses not to pay someones pension IMO. he should have got the police involved sooner - why didn't he ?
i was on the bus about 15 years ago and these two scumbags were sitting there on the back of the bus with their cans of carlsberg special brew effing and blinding to their heart's content and it was only about 5 pm. i had my two very young kids with me at the time and it was not nice at all - so i asked this lady i was talking to at the time to just watch my kids for a second.went to back of the bus and said (in my very broad scouse accent) 'if you dont shut your mouths right now i'm gonna knock the tow of you out !'.funnily enough, it worked a treat and they even apologised as they got off the bus. cant stand scruffy scumbag druggies and drunks intimidating people cos they think people wont say anything.that said some brighton and hove bus drivers are right dickheads as well. just saying. oh and anyone who wants to remonstrate with me can kiss my arse cos you obviously haven't the guts to confront these so-called people.seems like and excuse for b & h buses not to pay someones pension IMO. he should have got the police involved sooner - why didn't he ? truescouser
  • Score: 3

1:25pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ctkirk says...

Nice going Nigel - Its about time somebody got some traction in the press. Far too much underhanded stuff going on at that company. You were not the only victim towards the end of false accusations or made up trouble!
Nice going Nigel - Its about time somebody got some traction in the press. Far too much underhanded stuff going on at that company. You were not the only victim towards the end of false accusations or made up trouble! ctkirk
  • Score: 3

3:37pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ctkirk says...

Brighton Bill wrote:
mthew wrote:
Oh people are so childish and being cryptic about their comments here and some obviously think that they Nigel orchestrated all this himself and has lied to me and everyone, my answer is don't hide behind your user id and grow a pair. Most of the drivers at B&H had the utmost respect for Nigel and are shocked that this has happened, as am I. But the whole point of this story was to highlight the duty if care and the fact that he sat at home for 5 whole days before getting any contact from them and then that was from a lacky that had to deliver a pack of paperwork. Not even one phone call to ask how he was just a "you've been injured in the course of your work, but we don't care" attitude. Nigel didn't break the law and was not prosecuted by anyone. He asserted his statutory right to defend himself albeit the company decided that it was improper. If he hadn't been injured then the CCTV wouldn't have even been looked at and everyone knows that.
Excellent comment, come Union Rep get your finger out and support your member, show him it is worth being a union member..
I agree, I worked with Nigel for years. I was his subordinate as a driver and then his superior as a manager. He treated me with equal respect as both. He had a gruff manner, but it was just that, a manner. He made sure praise was given whenever it was due and was one of very few who did that. Yes - there is always another side to a story, but even if this is the case, it would have been biased against Nigel. The union are little to no help in matters of discipline. They are not concerned with innocence or guilt, only with propability. If they think the probability of winning is low, they wont even try. I have been the victim of this myself with Unite. Nigel is not the only person to have been short changed by the bus company in this way recently. Staff on old contracts and higher pay are dissapearing to make way for staff with less pay and less holiday. I believe that opportunities are being taken as they arise. The other comment made in these posts was about employment law requiring innocence to be proved rather than guilt. This is also true and is used to very good effect by B&H. These situations are extremely common now and would not have occured with such frequency when Roger was there.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: Oh people are so childish and being cryptic about their comments here and some obviously think that they Nigel orchestrated all this himself and has lied to me and everyone, my answer is don't hide behind your user id and grow a pair. Most of the drivers at B&H had the utmost respect for Nigel and are shocked that this has happened, as am I. But the whole point of this story was to highlight the duty if care and the fact that he sat at home for 5 whole days before getting any contact from them and then that was from a lacky that had to deliver a pack of paperwork. Not even one phone call to ask how he was just a "you've been injured in the course of your work, but we don't care" attitude. Nigel didn't break the law and was not prosecuted by anyone. He asserted his statutory right to defend himself albeit the company decided that it was improper. If he hadn't been injured then the CCTV wouldn't have even been looked at and everyone knows that.[/p][/quote]Excellent comment, come Union Rep get your finger out and support your member, show him it is worth being a union member..[/p][/quote]I agree, I worked with Nigel for years. I was his subordinate as a driver and then his superior as a manager. He treated me with equal respect as both. He had a gruff manner, but it was just that, a manner. He made sure praise was given whenever it was due and was one of very few who did that. Yes - there is always another side to a story, but even if this is the case, it would have been biased against Nigel. The union are little to no help in matters of discipline. They are not concerned with innocence or guilt, only with propability. If they think the probability of winning is low, they wont even try. I have been the victim of this myself with Unite. Nigel is not the only person to have been short changed by the bus company in this way recently. Staff on old contracts and higher pay are dissapearing to make way for staff with less pay and less holiday. I believe that opportunities are being taken as they arise. The other comment made in these posts was about employment law requiring innocence to be proved rather than guilt. This is also true and is used to very good effect by B&H. These situations are extremely common now and would not have occured with such frequency when Roger was there. ctkirk
  • Score: 5

3:43pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ctkirk says...

Saffron wrote:
Come back Roger French from retirement. I am sure he would have found a different and more sensible way of dealing with this.
Never a truer word spoken!
[quote][p][bold]Saffron[/bold] wrote: Come back Roger French from retirement. I am sure he would have found a different and more sensible way of dealing with this.[/p][/quote]Never a truer word spoken! ctkirk
  • Score: 1

5:23pm Wed 12 Mar 14

laddyluck says...

S Avery. wrote:
First of all thank you spa301 for telling my daughter to rise above it.. Fight bk z thew needs no evidence of her comments she is his kid.. As I should know the mother of his two kids and kindly say fight bk would you like me to show you her birth certificate .. Not that she needs to prove it
Well now. This just is not the truth is it S Avery. I knew you and Nigel while you were a couple. You were seeing another man behind Nigel's back. You admitted it to me. And admitted that the paternity of Z Thew (not even her real last name), was in question. Nigel told me he did not go with you when you registered your daughter and you were not married, so please explain how Nigel's name could possibly be on her certificate of birth?

And its clear to see you are her mother. She clearly gets her spelling and grammar from you.
[quote][p][bold]S Avery.[/bold] wrote: First of all thank you spa301 for telling my daughter to rise above it.. Fight bk z thew needs no evidence of her comments she is his kid.. As I should know the mother of his two kids and kindly say fight bk would you like me to show you her birth certificate .. Not that she needs to prove it[/p][/quote]Well now. This just is not the truth is it S Avery. I knew you and Nigel while you were a couple. You were seeing another man behind Nigel's back. You admitted it to me. And admitted that the paternity of Z Thew (not even her real last name), was in question. Nigel told me he did not go with you when you registered your daughter and you were not married, so please explain how Nigel's name could possibly be on her certificate of birth? And its clear to see you are her mother. She clearly gets her spelling and grammar from you. laddyluck
  • Score: -3

5:41pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Offliner says...

made up wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
Not if he felt threatened by the actions of another. I bet you're the type of person who'd refuse to help if you saw a woman getting beaten up in the street. Some people really need to grow a set and stop blaming their lack of actions in social situations on fear of prosecution.
This was this mans job and he had been sacked for doing it.
If he had done anything criminal then the police were aware of the incident and would have taken action.
made up wrote: "I bet you're the type of person who'd refuse to help if you saw a woman getting beaten up in the street."

Some years back I called 999 when I saw some guy beating up his girlfriend. The guy then turned on me and someone else called 999. The police only came to see me 36 hours later after I rang them to find out why they didn't turn up. Lack of police interest, or people who sack their employees for stepping in, are just encouraging people to walk on by. What a sad world we live in.
[quote][p][bold]made up[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]Not if he felt threatened by the actions of another. I bet you're the type of person who'd refuse to help if you saw a woman getting beaten up in the street. Some people really need to grow a set and stop blaming their lack of actions in social situations on fear of prosecution. This was this mans job and he had been sacked for doing it. If he had done anything criminal then the police were aware of the incident and would have taken action.[/p][/quote]made up wrote: "I bet you're the type of person who'd refuse to help if you saw a woman getting beaten up in the street." Some years back I called 999 when I saw some guy beating up his girlfriend. The guy then turned on me and someone else called 999. The police only came to see me 36 hours later after I rang them to find out why they didn't turn up. Lack of police interest, or people who sack their employees for stepping in, are just encouraging people to walk on by. What a sad world we live in. Offliner
  • Score: 4

5:47pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Offliner says...

Someone please get hold of the CCTV footage and youtube it!
Someone please get hold of the CCTV footage and youtube it! Offliner
  • Score: 4

6:01pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Juleyanne says...

Bring back good old fashioned justice. This driver would have got commended a couple of decades ago and should be reinstated for removing unruly lowlife from company property and protecting innocent customers.
Bring back good old fashioned justice. This driver would have got commended a couple of decades ago and should be reinstated for removing unruly lowlife from company property and protecting innocent customers. Juleyanne
  • Score: 5

6:07pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Offliner says...

Metro Reader wrote:
much more to this than being reported.
Why was the drunk allowed to board in the first place.
it also takes a lot of force to brake an ankle, never mind in three places.

Sound like the force used was over the top. Play within the rules and he would still be in a job.

If he was so theatened then why not call the police and keep a distance? excessive force must have been recoreded on CCTV.

If this man wants to take it futhern he should not be talking to the press.
You can break an ankle quite easily if you fall the wrong way, maybe as you're dragged by a staggering drunk from the step of a bus. Or are you suggesting he used excessive force on himself and broke his own ankle? I don't see anything that says the drunk was injured. And I don't see anything that says he personally felt threatened -- if it was that threatening a situation the driver or the company could have called the police. It sounds to me like he was just doing his job and defending the driver and other passengers against a drunken yob. Let's see the CCTV.
[quote][p][bold]Metro Reader[/bold] wrote: much more to this than being reported. Why was the drunk allowed to board in the first place. it also takes a lot of force to brake an ankle, never mind in three places. Sound like the force used was over the top. Play within the rules and he would still be in a job. If he was so theatened then why not call the police and keep a distance? excessive force must have been recoreded on CCTV. If this man wants to take it futhern he should not be talking to the press.[/p][/quote]You can break an ankle quite easily if you fall the wrong way, maybe as you're dragged by a staggering drunk from the step of a bus. Or are you suggesting he used excessive force on himself and broke his own ankle? I don't see anything that says the drunk was injured. And I don't see anything that says he personally felt threatened -- if it was that threatening a situation the driver or the company could have called the police. It sounds to me like he was just doing his job and defending the driver and other passengers against a drunken yob. Let's see the CCTV. Offliner
  • Score: 1

6:17pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Athena says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
made up wrote:
Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make.
Good luck in what you do next Nigel.
in this day and age......we know that if you place an hand on a person .....it is classed.......BY LAW as assault I know that Nigel Thews actions were, in his, and many others eyes, good, we must remember that we cannot go around grabbing people and removing them from anywhere.........sec

urity guards have to be trained and licenced to restrain shoplifters etc....I feel that he is to blame for the position that he is in...............
Is your surname Harris?
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]made up[/bold] wrote: Yet another moment in the decline of B&H - Any driver knew that when Nigel Thew was on duty they would have 100% back up from him. Now after all these years the company turns their back. They should be ashamed and I'd hope his colleagues stand up to the company against the way he has been treated (although some seem so spineless now I doubt they will). As someone else has said, travel on a bus with Nigel or a bus of managers? Not a difficult choice to make. Good luck in what you do next Nigel.[/p][/quote]in this day and age......we know that if you place an hand on a person .....it is classed.......BY LAW as assault I know that Nigel Thews actions were, in his, and many others eyes, good, we must remember that we cannot go around grabbing people and removing them from anywhere.........sec urity guards have to be trained and licenced to restrain shoplifters etc....I feel that he is to blame for the position that he is in...............[/p][/quote]Is your surname Harris? Athena
  • Score: -1

7:52pm Wed 12 Mar 14

disgruntledHove says...

MEANWHILE ... The real offender is probably sitting on another bus with a bottle of whatever ...and has not changed his ways and will continue to abuse people. Perhaps B&H buses ought to give him a free pass and a special seat with a bucket of ice and a glass....and don't forget the lemon slice.
I am so sick of the namby pamby 'handle the baddies withcare' attitude whilst the paying public have to take the abuse and 'live with it'.
People may say Mr Thew was a bully..., but ...these abusive passengers who get on buses are the real culprits who bully decent people into submission and make them afraid of travelling on the buses.
MEANWHILE ... The real offender is probably sitting on another bus with a bottle of whatever ...and has not changed his ways and will continue to abuse people. Perhaps B&H buses ought to give him a free pass and a special seat with a bucket of ice and a glass....and don't forget the lemon slice. I am so sick of the namby pamby 'handle the baddies withcare' attitude whilst the paying public have to take the abuse and 'live with it'. People may say Mr Thew was a bully..., but ...these abusive passengers who get on buses are the real culprits who bully decent people into submission and make them afraid of travelling on the buses. disgruntledHove
  • Score: 5

9:22pm Wed 12 Mar 14

davyboy says...

If the public were to witness what bus drivers have to put up with everyday, then they wouldn't be slagging off Mr Thew, but praising him for his actions. The bus driver, a lady, had called for assistance due to this drunk abusing and frightening other members of the public, including children. She clearly couldn't leave her cab to deal with this situation. As this drunk wouldn't leave peacefully, and Mr Thew was being threatened, he did what was necessary to remove the person from the vehicle. No one should be abused or attacked whilst doing their job. The company have a duty of care to their employees and should never have dismissed a loyal and hard working member of staff.
If the public were to witness what bus drivers have to put up with everyday, then they wouldn't be slagging off Mr Thew, but praising him for his actions. The bus driver, a lady, had called for assistance due to this drunk abusing and frightening other members of the public, including children. She clearly couldn't leave her cab to deal with this situation. As this drunk wouldn't leave peacefully, and Mr Thew was being threatened, he did what was necessary to remove the person from the vehicle. No one should be abused or attacked whilst doing their job. The company have a duty of care to their employees and should never have dismissed a loyal and hard working member of staff. davyboy
  • Score: 3

9:59pm Wed 12 Mar 14

notanimbyyet says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
Hmmmn interesting...would you still feel the same way if your child or a member of your family had been on this bus and been threatened or abused by the drunk and a bus supervisor had stood back and watched, refusing to "cross the red line"?
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]Hmmmn interesting...would you still feel the same way if your child or a member of your family had been on this bus and been threatened or abused by the drunk and a bus supervisor had stood back and watched, refusing to "cross the red line"? notanimbyyet
  • Score: -2

10:08pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Iain_B says...

notanimbyyet wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.
Hmmmn interesting...would you still feel the same way if your child or a member of your family had been on this bus and been threatened or abused by the drunk and a bus supervisor had stood back and watched, refusing to "cross the red line"?
Hmmmn interesting...would you still feel the same way if your child or a member of your family had been on a good night out, been on this bus and then been treated in this way by a bus supervisor?
[quote][p][bold]notanimbyyet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: simple...........not allowed in any way to place an hand on any person.......he crossed the red line.[/p][/quote]Hmmmn interesting...would you still feel the same way if your child or a member of your family had been on this bus and been threatened or abused by the drunk and a bus supervisor had stood back and watched, refusing to "cross the red line"?[/p][/quote]Hmmmn interesting...would you still feel the same way if your child or a member of your family had been on a good night out, been on this bus and then been treated in this way by a bus supervisor? Iain_B
  • Score: 0

11:31pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Mr chock says...

i have just seen this headline ...
Brighton and Hove bus worker sacked after removing drunk

i have not yet read the comments BUT ....
1 . was he sacked for removing the drunk ?
2 . was he one any type of warning for his job I.E his been not such a good bus driver in the past ...
3 . why is this getting so so many comments ...... there are drunks all over the city the city seems to have so many drunks does anyone care about what happened to the drunk.. ?

....................
....................
..
ok now i will go and read the news article and the comments BACK in a BIT .....
i have just seen this headline ... Brighton and Hove bus worker sacked after removing drunk i have not yet read the comments BUT .... 1 . was he sacked for removing the drunk ? 2 . was he one any type of warning for his job I.E his been not such a good bus driver in the past ... 3 . why is this getting so so many comments ...... there are drunks all over the city the city seems to have so many drunks does anyone care about what happened to the drunk.. ? .................... .................... .. ok now i will go and read the news article and the comments BACK in a BIT ..... Mr chock
  • Score: -3

11:37pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Mr chock says...

Mr chock wrote:
i have just seen this headline ...
Brighton and Hove bus worker sacked after removing drunk

i have not yet read the comments BUT ....
1 . was he sacked for removing the drunk ?
2 . was he one any type of warning for his job I.E his been not such a good bus driver in the past ...
3 . why is this getting so so many comments ...... there are drunks all over the city the city seems to have so many drunks does anyone care about what happened to the drunk.. ?

....................

....................

..
ok now i will go and read the news article and the comments BACK in a BIT .....
OK now i have read it this is FACELESS company talk “The only contact I had from the bus company after the incident was five days later when they said I had to attend a disciplinary meeting.
[quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: i have just seen this headline ... Brighton and Hove bus worker sacked after removing drunk i have not yet read the comments BUT .... 1 . was he sacked for removing the drunk ? 2 . was he one any type of warning for his job I.E his been not such a good bus driver in the past ... 3 . why is this getting so so many comments ...... there are drunks all over the city the city seems to have so many drunks does anyone care about what happened to the drunk.. ? .................... .................... .. ok now i will go and read the news article and the comments BACK in a BIT .....[/p][/quote]OK now i have read it this is FACELESS company talk “The only contact I had from the bus company after the incident was five days later when they said I had to attend a disciplinary meeting. Mr chock
  • Score: -4

6:04pm Thu 13 Mar 14

her professional says...

ghost bus driver wrote:
Legion1000 wrote:
what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.
Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.
Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.
[quote][p][bold]ghost bus driver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legion1000[/bold] wrote: what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.[/p][/quote]Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.[/p][/quote]Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks. her professional
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Thu 13 Mar 14

pumpkineater23 says...

her professional wrote:
ghost bus driver wrote:
Legion1000 wrote:
what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.
Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.
Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.
People that say "methinks" should post only on facebook. STOP IT!!
[quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ghost bus driver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legion1000[/bold] wrote: what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.[/p][/quote]Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.[/p][/quote]Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.[/p][/quote]People that say "methinks" should post only on facebook. STOP IT!! pumpkineater23
  • Score: -3

9:19pm Thu 13 Mar 14

her professional says...

pumpkineater23 wrote:
her professional wrote:
ghost bus driver wrote:
Legion1000 wrote:
what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.
Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.
Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.
People that say "methinks" should post only on facebook. STOP IT!!
Sorry, thought this was Facebook, must take my medication forsooth.
[quote][p][bold]pumpkineater23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ghost bus driver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legion1000[/bold] wrote: what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.[/p][/quote]Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.[/p][/quote]Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.[/p][/quote]People that say "methinks" should post only on facebook. STOP IT!![/p][/quote]Sorry, thought this was Facebook, must take my medication forsooth. her professional
  • Score: 2

6:36pm Fri 14 Mar 14

whatevernext2013 says...

ctkirk wrote:
Brighton Bill wrote:
mthew wrote:
Oh people are so childish and being cryptic about their comments here and some obviously think that they Nigel orchestrated all this himself and has lied to me and everyone, my answer is don't hide behind your user id and grow a pair. Most of the drivers at B&H had the utmost respect for Nigel and are shocked that this has happened, as am I. But the whole point of this story was to highlight the duty if care and the fact that he sat at home for 5 whole days before getting any contact from them and then that was from a lacky that had to deliver a pack of paperwork. Not even one phone call to ask how he was just a "you've been injured in the course of your work, but we don't care" attitude. Nigel didn't break the law and was not prosecuted by anyone. He asserted his statutory right to defend himself albeit the company decided that it was improper. If he hadn't been injured then the CCTV wouldn't have even been looked at and everyone knows that.
Excellent comment, come Union Rep get your finger out and support your member, show him it is worth being a union member..
I agree, I worked with Nigel for years. I was his subordinate as a driver and then his superior as a manager. He treated me with equal respect as both. He had a gruff manner, but it was just that, a manner. He made sure praise was given whenever it was due and was one of very few who did that. Yes - there is always another side to a story, but even if this is the case, it would have been biased against Nigel. The union are little to no help in matters of discipline. They are not concerned with innocence or guilt, only with propability. If they think the probability of winning is low, they wont even try. I have been the victim of this myself with Unite. Nigel is not the only person to have been short changed by the bus company in this way recently. Staff on old contracts and higher pay are dissapearing to make way for staff with less pay and less holiday. I believe that opportunities are being taken as they arise. The other comment made in these posts was about employment law requiring innocence to be proved rather than guilt. This is also true and is used to very good effect by B&H. These situations are extremely common now and would not have occured with such frequency when Roger was there.
i love the note about pay ,it was unite members that voted in the low rate for new drivers ,so they could line there own pockets ,no good crying now about how cheap new drivers are when it was there own greed that put them in this position ,after all its a business thats run for profit not a good will enterprise ,a union is only as good/bad as its members and you get what you pay for
[quote][p][bold]ctkirk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: Oh people are so childish and being cryptic about their comments here and some obviously think that they Nigel orchestrated all this himself and has lied to me and everyone, my answer is don't hide behind your user id and grow a pair. Most of the drivers at B&H had the utmost respect for Nigel and are shocked that this has happened, as am I. But the whole point of this story was to highlight the duty if care and the fact that he sat at home for 5 whole days before getting any contact from them and then that was from a lacky that had to deliver a pack of paperwork. Not even one phone call to ask how he was just a "you've been injured in the course of your work, but we don't care" attitude. Nigel didn't break the law and was not prosecuted by anyone. He asserted his statutory right to defend himself albeit the company decided that it was improper. If he hadn't been injured then the CCTV wouldn't have even been looked at and everyone knows that.[/p][/quote]Excellent comment, come Union Rep get your finger out and support your member, show him it is worth being a union member..[/p][/quote]I agree, I worked with Nigel for years. I was his subordinate as a driver and then his superior as a manager. He treated me with equal respect as both. He had a gruff manner, but it was just that, a manner. He made sure praise was given whenever it was due and was one of very few who did that. Yes - there is always another side to a story, but even if this is the case, it would have been biased against Nigel. The union are little to no help in matters of discipline. They are not concerned with innocence or guilt, only with propability. If they think the probability of winning is low, they wont even try. I have been the victim of this myself with Unite. Nigel is not the only person to have been short changed by the bus company in this way recently. Staff on old contracts and higher pay are dissapearing to make way for staff with less pay and less holiday. I believe that opportunities are being taken as they arise. The other comment made in these posts was about employment law requiring innocence to be proved rather than guilt. This is also true and is used to very good effect by B&H. These situations are extremely common now and would not have occured with such frequency when Roger was there.[/p][/quote]i love the note about pay ,it was unite members that voted in the low rate for new drivers ,so they could line there own pockets ,no good crying now about how cheap new drivers are when it was there own greed that put them in this position ,after all its a business thats run for profit not a good will enterprise ,a union is only as good/bad as its members and you get what you pay for whatevernext2013
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Zamora251 says...

Martin Harris, Managing Director of Brighton & Hove Buses deserves a punch in the face, I would love to meet him so I could punch him in the face, he is a spineless ****!!
Martin Harris, Managing Director of Brighton & Hove Buses deserves a punch in the face, I would love to meet him so I could punch him in the face, he is a spineless ****!! Zamora251
  • Score: -4

9:51pm Fri 14 Mar 14

ghost bus driver says...

her professional wrote:
ghost bus driver wrote:
Legion1000 wrote:
what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.
Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.
Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.
And they STILL knock the spots off Unite.
[quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ghost bus driver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legion1000[/bold] wrote: what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.[/p][/quote]Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.[/p][/quote]Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.[/p][/quote]And they STILL knock the spots off Unite. ghost bus driver
  • Score: 0

11:25pm Fri 14 Mar 14

darcyp says...

Please sign not right what they've done to this man.

Ann Lawrence http://www.change.or
g/.../martin-harris-
managing-director...






Martin Harris, Managing Director: Reinstate Nigel Thew, sacked after 17 years’ for ejecting a...
www.change.org

Nigel Thew, who broke his ankle in three places during the incident, was dismissed after he ejected the man off the vehicle.It is atrocious how this...
Please sign not right what they've done to this man. Ann Lawrence http://www.change.or g/.../martin-harris- managing-director... Martin Harris, Managing Director: Reinstate Nigel Thew, sacked after 17 years’ for ejecting a... www.change.org Nigel Thew, who broke his ankle in three places during the incident, was dismissed after he ejected the man off the vehicle.It is atrocious how this... darcyp
  • Score: -3

11:26pm Fri 14 Mar 14

darcyp says...

Ann Lawrence http://www.change.or
g/.../martin-harris-
managing-director...
Ann Lawrence http://www.change.or g/.../martin-harris- managing-director... darcyp
  • Score: -2

11:27am Sat 15 Mar 14

mthew says...

It doesn't appear to be on the website yet, but there is now a follow up story to this with a witness coming forward to say that my husbands coat was grabbed and that he was pulled by the drunk passenger and that my husband didn't do anything wrong and had every right to defend himself...so for all those doubting people making derogatory comments on here......there is your witness and story from the other side.
It doesn't appear to be on the website yet, but there is now a follow up story to this with a witness coming forward to say that my husbands coat was grabbed and that he was pulled by the drunk passenger and that my husband didn't do anything wrong and had every right to defend himself...so for all those doubting people making derogatory comments on here......there is your witness and story from the other side. mthew
  • Score: 1

1:48pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Man of steel says...

So, mthew, are you now trying to say that the passenger caused your husbands broken ankle?
If that was the case, then he would have been charged with actual bodily harm, if not grevious bodily harm, but he was not, he was only charged with using threatening words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and this, it seems, was to the other passengers, and not your husband.
So, mthew, are you now trying to say that the passenger caused your husbands broken ankle? If that was the case, then he would have been charged with actual bodily harm, if not grevious bodily harm, but he was not, he was only charged with using threatening words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and this, it seems, was to the other passengers, and not your husband. Man of steel
  • Score: 3

3:27pm Sat 15 Mar 14

ghost bus driver says...

Someone's written in to the letters page as well.
Someone's written in to the letters page as well. ghost bus driver
  • Score: 1

3:32pm Sat 15 Mar 14

mthew says...

Man of steel wrote:
So, mthew, are you now trying to say that the passenger caused your husbands broken ankle?
If that was the case, then he would have been charged with actual bodily harm, if not grevious bodily harm, but he was not, he was only charged with using threatening words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and this, it seems, was to the other passengers, and not your husband.
No I'm not saying that, all I am saying is that it wasn't all one sided as some people think. I have the paperwork that proves what the man was charged with and it was words and behaviour, and who was the aggrieved party being my husband.
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: So, mthew, are you now trying to say that the passenger caused your husbands broken ankle? If that was the case, then he would have been charged with actual bodily harm, if not grevious bodily harm, but he was not, he was only charged with using threatening words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and this, it seems, was to the other passengers, and not your husband.[/p][/quote]No I'm not saying that, all I am saying is that it wasn't all one sided as some people think. I have the paperwork that proves what the man was charged with and it was words and behaviour, and who was the aggrieved party being my husband. mthew
  • Score: 0

12:11am Sun 16 Mar 14

birthofanorange says...

It would be interesting (and helpful) if a union representative was to comment (anonymously, of course), as to why Mr. Thew is receiving no backing from them.
It would be interesting (and helpful) if a union representative was to comment (anonymously, of course), as to why Mr. Thew is receiving no backing from them. birthofanorange
  • Score: 3

12:23pm Sun 16 Mar 14

mearpaul says...

...just an excuse to get rid of good staff - happens all the time in these corporations when people are nearing pensionable age - I know he's 52, but this is an opportunity not to be missed in their eyes hence the delayed reaction!
It's disgusting, this man does his job and some and now he's sacked - what a pile of complicated, politically rubbish. Indeed, B&H buses should be absolutely ashamed of their 'delayed' actions and either reinstate Nigel or provide a good redundancy.
...just an excuse to get rid of good staff - happens all the time in these corporations when people are nearing pensionable age - I know he's 52, but this is an opportunity not to be missed in their eyes hence the delayed reaction! It's disgusting, this man does his job and some and now he's sacked - what a pile of complicated, politically rubbish. Indeed, B&H buses should be absolutely ashamed of their 'delayed' actions and either reinstate Nigel or provide a good redundancy. mearpaul
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Sun 16 Mar 14

cleggalike says...

Zamora251 wrote:
Martin Harris, Managing Director of Brighton & Hove Buses deserves a punch in the face, I would love to meet him so I could punch him in the face, he is a spineless ****!!
...and posting anonymously on the Argus website makes you a Big Brave Soldier does it?
[quote][p][bold]Zamora251[/bold] wrote: Martin Harris, Managing Director of Brighton & Hove Buses deserves a punch in the face, I would love to meet him so I could punch him in the face, he is a spineless ****!![/p][/quote]...and posting anonymously on the Argus website makes you a Big Brave Soldier does it? cleggalike
  • Score: 1

4:32pm Sun 16 Mar 14

cleggalike says...

Zamora251 wrote:
Martin Harris, Managing Director of Brighton & Hove Buses deserves a punch in the face, I would love to meet him so I could punch him in the face, he is a spineless ****!!
And posting anonymous threats on the Argus website makes you a Big Brave Soldier does it?
[quote][p][bold]Zamora251[/bold] wrote: Martin Harris, Managing Director of Brighton & Hove Buses deserves a punch in the face, I would love to meet him so I could punch him in the face, he is a spineless ****!![/p][/quote]And posting anonymous threats on the Argus website makes you a Big Brave Soldier does it? cleggalike
  • Score: 5

2:19am Thu 3 Apr 14

tomdruitt says...

Come work with us Mr Thew http://www.thebiglem
on.com/community/lat
estNews/default.asp?
wdgt16458944=1_marke
tingArticleViewer001
Article&iuid=1646165
9
Come work with us Mr Thew http://www.thebiglem on.com/community/lat estNews/default.asp? wdgt16458944=1_marke tingArticleViewer001 Article&iuid=1646165 9 tomdruitt
  • Score: 1

3:32pm Tue 8 Apr 14

whatevernext2013 says...

ghost bus driver wrote:
her professional wrote:
ghost bus driver wrote:
Legion1000 wrote:
what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.
Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.
Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.
And they STILL knock the spots off Unite.
sure unite is in bed with the company selling out its members at every chance
[quote][p][bold]ghost bus driver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ghost bus driver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legion1000[/bold] wrote: what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.[/p][/quote]Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.[/p][/quote]Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.[/p][/quote]And they STILL knock the spots off Unite.[/p][/quote]sure unite is in bed with the company selling out its members at every chance whatevernext2013
  • Score: 1

5:11pm Tue 8 Apr 14

mthew says...

whatevernext2013 wrote:
ghost bus driver wrote:
her professional wrote:
ghost bus driver wrote:
Legion1000 wrote:
what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.
Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.
Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.
And they STILL knock the spots off Unite.
sure unite is in bed with the company selling out its members at every chance
At the end of the day my husband was innocent of all wrong doings and witnesses have proved this. It's not mr Thew's fault if the union are in bed with the management and always have been. At the very least brighton and hove owe my husband an explanation as to why he sat at home with not even a "how are you" phone call only to get a union lacky to deliver the message because they couldn't be bothered to get a manager to make the call. I have written to them asking them to explain why they deem their after care behaviour acceptable but after 2 weeks of waiting they have completely ignored me so that is the sort of company they are. Totally dismissive and cowardly.
[quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ghost bus driver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ghost bus driver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legion1000[/bold] wrote: what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.[/p][/quote]Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.[/p][/quote]Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.[/p][/quote]And they STILL knock the spots off Unite.[/p][/quote]sure unite is in bed with the company selling out its members at every chance[/p][/quote]At the end of the day my husband was innocent of all wrong doings and witnesses have proved this. It's not mr Thew's fault if the union are in bed with the management and always have been. At the very least brighton and hove owe my husband an explanation as to why he sat at home with not even a "how are you" phone call only to get a union lacky to deliver the message because they couldn't be bothered to get a manager to make the call. I have written to them asking them to explain why they deem their after care behaviour acceptable but after 2 weeks of waiting they have completely ignored me so that is the sort of company they are. Totally dismissive and cowardly. mthew
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Tue 8 Apr 14

mthew says...

mthew wrote:
whatevernext2013 wrote:
ghost bus driver wrote:
her professional wrote:
ghost bus driver wrote:
Legion1000 wrote:
what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.
Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.
Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.
And they STILL knock the spots off Unite.
sure unite is in bed with the company selling out its members at every chance
At the end of the day my husband was innocent of all wrong doings and witnesses have proved this. It's not mr Thew's fault if the union are in bed with the management and always have been. At the very least brighton and hove owe my husband an explanation as to why he sat at home with not even a "how are you" phone call only to get a union lacky to deliver the message because they couldn't be bothered to get a manager to make the call. I have written to them asking them to explain why they deem their after care behaviour acceptable but after 2 weeks of waiting they have completely ignored me so that is the sort of company they are. Totally dismissive and cowardly.
The union lacky delivered the "disciplinary message" so if any of you on here think that my husband deserved to be sat at home without a care from his company after being sent to the incident in the first place after the company let the bus carry on it's journey with school kids and the drunk on board rather than calling the police on the first place, all I can say is I'm glad it wasn't your kids or spouse that was subject to the abuse that those kids and my husband got
[quote][p][bold]mthew[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ghost bus driver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ghost bus driver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legion1000[/bold] wrote: what a lot of people seem to not realise is that police law is different to work law, police law you have to prove your innocent, in work law your guilty and have to prove your innocence beyond reasonably doubt. B+H do not sack people willy nilly, there are laws,rules and procedures to follow. The CCTV would have been studied very carefully before Mr Thew was sacked. If there was any doubt over his actions then he would not have been sacked. As for the Unions not supporting him in a Industrial Tribunal, dosnt that tell you something, it means that they cannot win the case, it costs a lot of money for an Industrial tribunal. Also why are the majority od comments on here slagging everyone else off, this should be about if Mr Thew is innocent or not, full stop.[/p][/quote]Erm. yes they do. They are excessively quick to use the disciplinary process (a sure sign of bad management if you ever need one) and when they do they usually get it wrong, either not following procedure or making the law up as they go along. if the Unite union were not in management's pocket then they would be pulled up over it a lot more. I'm one of the lucky ones who has properly trained GMB reps to call on if need be. Some with legal traning as well.[/p][/quote]Have a look at the GMB record for defending drivers, not too successful. GMB axe to grind methinks.[/p][/quote]And they STILL knock the spots off Unite.[/p][/quote]sure unite is in bed with the company selling out its members at every chance[/p][/quote]At the end of the day my husband was innocent of all wrong doings and witnesses have proved this. It's not mr Thew's fault if the union are in bed with the management and always have been. At the very least brighton and hove owe my husband an explanation as to why he sat at home with not even a "how are you" phone call only to get a union lacky to deliver the message because they couldn't be bothered to get a manager to make the call. I have written to them asking them to explain why they deem their after care behaviour acceptable but after 2 weeks of waiting they have completely ignored me so that is the sort of company they are. Totally dismissive and cowardly.[/p][/quote]The union lacky delivered the "disciplinary message" so if any of you on here think that my husband deserved to be sat at home without a care from his company after being sent to the incident in the first place after the company let the bus carry on it's journey with school kids and the drunk on board rather than calling the police on the first place, all I can say is I'm glad it wasn't your kids or spouse that was subject to the abuse that those kids and my husband got mthew
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree