And that was ruled out in this case.
Still doesn't make him 'drunk'
And that was ruled out in this case.
Ruled out by the employer, yes. But I don't know for a fact that there wasn't dissenting medical opinion.And that was ruled out in this case.
Still doesn't make him 'drunk'
Still makes them unsafe to drive though.
Still makes them unsafe to drive though.
Your completely missing the point.
You stated the Driver was drunk - No reported evidence whatsoever states this.
No level of alcohol has been reported - Therefore you cannot make any claim to how much alcohol was in their system.
No reports of the Driver being 'unsafe' - Only YOU are making this claim.
Except in both cases there is not a zero limit so actually they would."You wouldn't let someone who had been drinking alcohol drive your family in a car, and we don't let people who have been drinking alcohol drive people's families in Tube trains.
True. But you can fail an alcohol breath test having drunk zero alcohol. That is why only a blood alcohol level test is definitive.Drivers on London Underground have voted to go on strike over the sacking of a colleague for failing an alcohol breath test.
Clear as mud, but with an undertone that were not happy that this dangerous driver was no longer in the cab where the union wanted them.
Except in both cases there is not a zero limit so actually they would.
And, in any case, you still haven't provided any evidence to support your assertion that the driver in question was drunk.
Repeatedly saying the same thing doesn't make it true.Not sure how many times I need to repeat this...
We do not know how much (if any) alcohol the driver consumed, nor by how much they were over the extremely low BAC limits set for train drivers. Nobody is denying that he tested over the limit, but there is zero indication that he was impaired.The driver had consumed so much alcohol they were incapable of doing their job safely, aka 'drunk'.
We go way off topic for this sub forum, but the politics of the Undergound are such that I am not confident of the last assertion, nor of the fairness of how Underground management apply disciplinary processes in these cases.Repeatedly saying the same thing doesn't make it true.
We do not know how much (if any) alcohol the driver consumed, nor by how much they were over the extremely low BAC limits set for train drivers. Nobody is denying that he tested over the limit, but there is zero indication that he was impaired.
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but it's possible to blow over the limit without drinking and we only have the employer's word that this wasn't a factor here: "It's okay Sarge, the murderer says he didn't do it."
He might have been impaired, but if he was then I'm very surprised to see the Union fight his case to the extent of coming out on strike action since an unsafe driver at the controls represents a direct danger to each and every member.
We go way off topic for this sub forum