The BBC just published this article....

a reply to: stargatetravels


Don't you find it odd that it's Tim's word only that was taken

as truth?

Most people who have unpleasant encounters usually take another

route or cross the street, or look the other way. As a woman in the

past I have had men expose themselves to me, opening their

raincoats I looked the other way and ignored the silly barstewards.

But this Tim somehow always managed to pass the shop at the same

time as Truebrit was having a break?? coincidence?? or what!!


I believe the case covered 20 encounters? If you were being regularly

harassed a the same spot every time wouldn't you take a friend with

you ... and then you would have 'clear' evidence for your case

even photo's off a phone ... I mean these days people take pics of

everything, I don't think that even a meal is ever eaten these days

without a pic of the food appearing on fb.

Something doesn't ring true! How difficult would it have been to

have some sort of clear evidence after 20 encounters.

a reply to: eletheia


Well the guy clearly didn't need a friend or any evidence - he won the case and has been awarded the money, right?
And perhaps he was adamant he would not be bullied or have to change route just because of the abuse he suffered - if he really was abused, why should he have to alter his route?

Look I'm playing devils advocate here. The facts are not clear.

originally posted by: stargatetravels


Well the guy clearly didn't need a friend or any evidence - he won the case and has been awarded the money, right?

Hmmm... my feelings? rather a large figure for hurt feelings .... but

not so much for a three way split. OOP's we don't have bent lawyers

or judges ...do we??

And perhaps he was adamant he would not be bullied or have to change route just because of the abuse he suffered - if he really was abused, why should he have to alter his route?

So if he was adamant he would not be bullied and he won the case

Why is he hiding his face (identity) he should be jubilant, not

shamefaced and anonymous.

I read this thread this morning and after thinking about what to post here I had the feeling I would be banned. So I shut it down and figured I would cool off at some point today.
Well I did not cool off at all but I will say this, The whole thing boils down to "He said this and He said that" I don't know about the law in other areas of the world but that would be called "Hearsay" in a Canadian court of law.

It would be thrown out of court after it was evident nobody had any proof. Wishing you well Truebrit and hold your head high.
Regards, Iwinder

Don't any of you find it at least a tad bit suspicious that no one reporting this has mentioned the fact that he's a Christian?

Is the whole LGBT vs. Christian feud unique to America?

If one is so insecure about their sexual persuasion, race, creed, religion, colour, intellectual capacity et al., that they demand society bend to their neurotic whims, they need to seek expert psychological help.

To fashion our existence in order to suit others' foibles, is to fly in the face of evolution -- a process which endeavours to weed out such shortcomings from our species' make-up.

a reply to: Power_Semi
Yeah, I fully understand your point and purpose of the locks. Making them pink would backfire. It seems like trying too hard, trying to compensate. Stereotyping that gay people need pink things.

If instead one of his gay friends "started" the idea of pink locks, it would be different. But not if TB started it.

originally posted by: Bone75
Don't any of you find it at least a tad bit suspicious that no one reporting this has mentioned the fact that he's a Christian?

Is the whole LGBT vs. Christian feud unique to America?

We don't have that in the uk..

a reply to: Bone75

Is the whole LGBT vs. Christian feud unique to America?

Actually it is something that's fairly unique to the US.

Christianity plays a dominant role in your country, but outside of the US it's not considered an important factor in most scenarios/situations, and usually never even gets brought up. Most of us aren't very vocal about our spiritual beliefs out in the public domain... it's a personal private thing.

I guess our cultures are very different in that aspect.

Heck, I don't even know what religion our Prime Minister is here in Canada because it's just not something that ever comes into play. It's not something we consider to be important.

originally posted by: Ridhya
a reply to: Power_Semi
Yeah, I fully understand your point and purpose of the locks. Making them pink would backfire. It seems like trying too hard, trying to compensate. Stereotyping that gay people need pink things.

If instead one of his gay friends "started" the idea of pink locks, it would be different. But not if TB started it.

Yes but - a load of regular padlocks chained around the court wouldn't have any kind of symbolism, a load of pink ones would send a very definite and clear message - the whole pink element has a totally different meaning here in the UK, that's why you have the pinknews.co.uk (12000th most visited website in the world - in fact it has a higher Alexa ranking than ATS for example), pink pound, the pink triangle, etc.

Pink is a symbol of gay rights and gay pride in the UK, it's not a derogatory statement.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The world would be a much worse place if gestures can be called discrimination or anything else. I can imagine the arrest of millions when people flip someone off in traffic or with their shopping cart.

In my thinking denying service would have been discrimination at the most this could come under harassment.

This really is outrageous ! ..i can hardly believe what i am reading watching..this is crazy PC gone mad !

I truly hope this get crushed sooner than later.

All the best Pete

Truebrit seems to have disappeared for the time being.

I can't follow the article at all...why, I'm not sure. I don't see how a story comprised of two characters and one main idea could be so hard to follow...but it is. So can someone in one or two sentences clarify? (Is it- Peter, aka TrueBrit or acquaintance of TrueBrit, was fined for allegedly making fun of a guy named Taylor with charades?- is that what the article says but TrueBrit says not so?)

a reply to: nonjudgementalist

I took a couple of days to get a few beers in, and have some time away from the crap.

I'm back in the driving seat now!

a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

I am TrueBrit/Peter.

Taylor Edwards was the company I was working for when all of this is supposed to have happened. The claimant will remain nameless, save for the moniker by which the newspapers know him, which is "Tim".

originally posted by: TrueBrit



The claimant will remain nameless, save for the moniker by which the newspapers know him, which is "Tim".

I think you have been unfairly treated, and hope you are able to appeal?

Besides the unfairness, and even IF any of it were true .....

Its hardly a *RAPE* case when the *victim* has the right to remain

anonomous.

Methinks IF it were true why? is he so shy, has he played this

particular discrimination card before

a reply to: TrueBrit
my utmost sympathy, and take a look at the latest South Park series, wherein political correctness is excoriated with homophobia being the theme of the satire.

Gesture discrimination is an absurd law with an absurd punishment. No evidence required.

Im guessing that the homosexual thought he could take advantage of the strong PC and LGBT movement and win an absurd discrimination case in court. Or he was just unstable.

The new rule basically gives opportunity to bring anyone to court because they were offended. All one has to do is so they apart of a minority in some way.