Fired For Refusing Poppies?

[mushroom25]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-46078099

that's how the headline reads - but it's not how it was reported on TV last night, nor indeed is it said in the text of the article. The police are investigating not the refusal, but threats made after the event. and the driver wasn't dismissed for refusing to transport poppies, but for falsifying his job card.

all very strange, eh?

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // I'm not twisting it at all. The taxi driver in question, for whatever reason, refused to take the poppies. Therefore he is prejudiced. //

The report we have only confirms that the taxi driver did not take the poppies, it does not say that he refused to take them, or a reason why he may have refused to take them.

Without a reason, it is impossible to conclude with accuracy that he was prejudiced.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //it does not say that he refused to take them//

Yes it does. The headline reads:

//Birmingham taxi driver sacked over 'refusing poppies'//

[Mamyalynne]

It depends which source you get the story from...

Independent

//A passenger carrying the poppies was to be taken from a Royal British Legion club in Kingstanding to Villa Park stadium on Thursday afternoon.

But it was claimed the driver asked what was inside the boxes, then refused to take them after being told they contained remembrance poppies.//

He then falsified his entry for that fare to the booking office.

Lousy Taxi driver.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - it does indeed, but you and I are both experienced enough at understanding how mainstream media operates to spot the inverted commas around the phrase 'refusing poppies'.

That is to cover the paper because it is not stating the refusal as a fact, because it cannot state categorically that he has actually refused to take anything anywhere.

Yes it did say 'refusing poppies' but was careful not to allow the observation to be construed as a fact, which could lead to legal action if proven to be incorrect.

[naomi24]

So that's both the BBC and the Independent confirming he 'refused'.

[naomi24]

And around you go yet again, andy-hughes.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - up to this point, I have been debating purely on the information provided in the link supplied by the OP.

The Independent is equally careful with its legal phrasing - prefacing an observation with the caveat 'But it was claimed ...' is the paper's get-out-of-jail-free card, and again, standard media practice.

So we have three lots of the same allegations - but three allegations don't make one truth - do they.

[-Talbot-]

You're in conflict once again with the

'what andy says is not what you think he says' rule. naomi.

Tut.

[naomi24]

Seems so, Talbot.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // Seems so, Talbot. //

Does it?

Care to explain how you know what I think - when you have stated in previous exchanges that you can only go on what I post?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, I did go on what you posted.

[spathiphyllum]

Was a person with the poppies? (not stated..)

Taxi drivers are nto delivery drivers. The reason he potentially 'refused (not proven)' may have been because he had to carry the boxes himself (not in the job description) and even if he wanted to he may have had a bad back, there may have been a person with the boxes that would take up too much room. the boxes could have been unsafe for travel in the way they were. There is way too much information missed out to assume the driver is prejudice but as you say he is, Naomi... What is he prejudicing?

[andy-hughes]

Spath - I pointed this out to Naomi at 13:34, I am so far without a response.

I believe there to be no definite evidence that this driver refused to deliver poppies for whatever reason, but it seems to be an uphill struggle to get some of the anti-Muslim agitators to see the facts as they stand, rather than as they would like them to be so they can pillory this driver and get themselves into another self-righteous lather.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // andy-hughes, I did go on what you posted. //

Fine, then how about a response to what I posted at 13:34 - care to 'go' on that?

[Old_Geezer]

234 posts about a failure to pick up some poppies !
Sheesh.

[spathiphyllum]

"I pointed this out to Naomi at 13:34, I am so far without a response. "

Then is it not customary to respond to every further answer with "can you answer my question at 13:34 please" ?

[Mamyalynne]

Spath, yes a passenger was with the boxes - read my reply above.

[spathiphyllum]

Thanks Mamy..

So the driver was actually fired for "failing to tell bosses the passenger had not been collected.". Nothing to do with poppies. In the taxi profession i assume that is quite serious as someones safety may be compromised if left stranded

Also...

"A spokesperson for The Royal British Legion said: “We take the view that remembrance honours the sacrifices and contributions our armed forces community have made in defence of freedom, and so how people choose to remember, or not to, must be a matter of personal choice.

“If remembrance became compulsory it would lose its meaning and significance.”"
From https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/taxi-driver-poppies-fired-remembrance-birmingham-sacked-refusing-transport-a8616106.html

In retail staff can deny sale to anyone simply because they don't wish to serve them for personal matters. I'm sure the same goes for taxi drivers and it seems it does. It was his lies that got him fired, not this actions.

[spathiphyllum]

So the title of the OP, and many newspapers, is trying to jerk knees.

[Mamyalynne]

Taxi drivers get the boot every day for not doing their job according to the rules.