In message , Jack Taylor
writes

"Solar Penguin" wrote in
message ...

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote...

You are clearly a complete and utter idiot.


More likely, he's just a troll out looking for attention. Ignore him then
he'll get bored and find some other newsgroup to annoy.

You clearly haven't much experience of this newsgroup then, if you are
accusing a long-term poster and recognised authority on LUL and signalling
matters as a troll!

Try doing a search on Clive's name on uk.transport.london and uk.railway or
looking at his website and you'll realise what a stupid statement that was!
;-)



I don't believe SP was referring to Clive as a troll but the person
Clive was replying to...
(One of the problems with 2D conversations)
--
Kat Me, Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

"Niklas Karlsson" wrote in message
...
In article , Jack Taylor
wrote:

"Solar Penguin" wrote in
message ...

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote...

You are clearly a complete and utter idiot.

More likely, he's just a troll out looking for attention. Ignore him
then
he'll get bored and find some other newsgroup to annoy.

[snip]

Try doing a search on Clive's name on uk.transport.london and uk.railway
or
looking at his website and you'll realise what a stupid statement that
was!
;-)

Uh, he was referring to Boltar, not Clive.

Whoops!

"Kat" wrote in message
...
I don't believe SP was referring to Clive as a troll but the person
Clive was replying to...
(One of the problems with 2D conversations)

It doesn't help with me being half asleep whilst I'm reading through uk.r
and u.t.l !!! ;-))

In message , Jack Taylor
writes

"Kat" wrote in message
...
I don't believe SP was referring to Clive as a troll but the person
Clive was replying to...
(One of the problems with 2D conversations)

It doesn't help with me being half asleep whilst I'm reading through uk.r
and u.t.l !!! ;-))

LOL!
B2003 is your usual sort of LU-staff hater; cast from the CJG mould but
lacking the elegant turn of phrase ;-)
--
Kat Me, Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
In article , Boltar
writes
Or fired. Anyone who takes over 200 days off sick is either an invalid or
taking the ****. Given that he could play squash he certainly wasn't
the former.
[...]
getting sick pay when theres clearly nothing
wrong with him.

You are clearly a complete and utter idiot.

There are *plenty* of circumstances where one can be able to play squash
yet be unable to do a job like train driving. I do a desk job, and there
are plenty of circumstances where I would be able to play squash[*] but
not do my job. I've even suffered a few.

[*] In the physical sense not the skill sense - my co-ordination is such
that, even after half a dozen lessons, I was as likely to miss as hit
the ball.

I think most people, (me included) would need it explained in very
short and simple word what exactly a driver *might* need to do that
could possibly involve some movement of foot / ankle / leg that a game
of squash would not be expected to involve to some degree.

I have climbed in and out of a full sized 3rd rail EMU via the drivers
steps to track level a few times, and while not completely simple, I
did not find it that much of a challenge.
I am inclined to go with the public opinion that he was swinging the
lead a bit until someone explains how running around a court making
major course changes at short notice can be more physically demanding
than climbing out of a cab and walking along the track.

In article ,
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
You are clearly a complete and utter idiot.

Tell us what you /really/ think, Clive.

--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.

In article ,
Boltar wrote:
Maybe there are , but he was claiming a dodgy ankle. Please do explain how
he could play squash with a bad ankle but couldn't drive a train with one?

Frankly, I don't know if it's likely that an ankle injury could
be fit for a game of squash, but not for driving a train. That's
because I don't know much about driving trains, or ankles.

So, I have to rely on expert opinion. You medical qualifications are?

--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.

OE-QuoteFixDave Babb wrote:

I think most people, (me included) would need it explained in very
short and simple word what exactly a driver might need to do that
could possibly involve some movement of foot / ankle / leg that a game
of squash would not be expected to involve to some degree.

I have climbed in and out of a full sized 3rd rail EMU via the drivers
steps to track level a few times, and while not completely simple, I
did not find it that much of a challenge.
I am inclined to go with the public opinion that he was swinging the
lead a bit until someone explains how running around a court making
major course changes at short notice can be more physically demanding
than climbing out of a cab and walking along the track.

Remember it's reported he originally claimed that he was playing squash on
medical advice but later reports said he'd said he found the prescribed
physio
'monotonous' so had self-prescribed squash to strengthen the ankle.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...212011,00.html

Boltar wrote:
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote in message
...
Boltar wrote:
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote in message
...
Jack Taylor wrote:
If you go to www.bbc.co.uk/radio2 , to the 'Listen Again' section,
you can hear him speaking to Jeremy Vine on today's programme.
This
should be available to listen to (and laugh at!) until Wednesday
lunchtime. He got quite a pasting from callers!

Interesting that none of them took into account the question of
safety if he
were to return to work in an unfit state.

You're not a mate of Bob Crowes are you?

No, are you in favour of running an unsafe railway?

Oh here we go , the standard issue "safety" question to question. I
think
that says it all about you mate.

So you do approve of running an unsafe railway. Thank you for the
confirmation.



Have you ever suffered serious physical injury?

*LOL*. Oh please , are you for real?? Yes I have actually , and it
was a damn
site more than a bust ankle and I still managed to go back to work
with
plaster casts because some of us in this world behave like adults and
take
our responsibilities seriously. Unlike you wasters down at LUL it
seems.
Nice little gravy train for you lot isn't it? 32K a year, fairly easy
job apart
from a few unsociable hours, as many sick days as you like. I think
I'm in the
wrong job.

Firstly I don't work for London Underground Ltd and never have done. Whether
or not one can do one's job with a plaster cast surely depends on the job.

It's you who's the pillock because, as usual with people like you, you can't
think about anyone or anything except yourself.

"Mike Bristow" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Boltar wrote:
Maybe there are , but he was claiming a dodgy ankle. Please do explain
how
he could play squash with a bad ankle but couldn't drive a train with
one?

Frankly, I don't know if it's likely that an ankle injury could
be fit for a game of squash, but not for driving a train. That's
because I don't know much about driving trains, or ankles.

Everyone appears to be assuming that this guy was playing a full-on game of
squash. However, he clearly indicated on Jeremy Vine's radio programme that
he was only playing a light knock-up, to test the strength of his ankle.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me - after any such injury you ease the
foot/ankle back into use, testing the lateral movement, the internal and
external rotation etc. a bit at a time, before applying any 'heavy-duty' use
to it. The kind of testing that might make it quite possible to drive a car
but not a train, where it *might* be necessary to jump three feet down onto
the trackbed, landing on the damaged ankle.

My initial reaction to this guy was to damn him as a 'lead-swinger' but,
having read much more about the case and heard some of his points from his
own mouth, rather than as they have been reported, I'm beginning to think
that there is a little bit more to this than meets the eye!