Hearted Youtube comments on The Wondering Englishman (@TheWonderingEnglishman) channel.
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
Ok so this is gonna be a long comment, but I wanted to hit all the points, so apologies in advance. Here goes:
The supermarket chain is called Idea. That particular building used to be home to a famous wine club called London, which led to everyone in the city referring to that building as "London", so when that closed and the supermarket opened, they kept the name and made a whole theme around it. (Other Idea supermarkets are named after the part of town where they're located, e.g. Idea Dorćol).
The building you pointed to thinking it was a hotel is actually the Museum of Contemporary Art, if you were referring to the white, crystal-like one in front of the skyscraper. The skyscraper is an office tower, but there is a hotel across the street from them.
The Tesla museum IS small, but it's scheduled to move into a much larger complex located in an old electric plant (fitting, right?) on the riverbank.
Yes, the building at 18:30 was destroyed in the '99 bombing. It's the old RTS (Serbia's equivalent to the BBC) headquarters.
The National Museum was recently re-opened after years of renovation work (same applies for the Museum of Contemporary Art).
The Old Central Station is closed and is slated to be converted into a museum. A new Central Station is planned for New Belgrade.
In defense of Belgrade's lack of monumental streets and buildings: the city was burned down to the foundations over 40 times, which explains a lot when you think about it :)
Great video, and again, sorry for the looong comment
17
-
17
-
Just a little data point for you. Which may also be of interest to the chap thrown out( if the two of you happened to exchange details).
Under the Private Security Industry Act 2001( and numerous sections of) it is a legal requirement for all SIA licensed person(s) to clearly display a valid License at all times whilst undertaking their duties that is visible to any member of the public, Police Constable, Local Licensing Officer and/or SIA Enforcement Officer carrying out authorised activities. (( There's no legal definition of how: Armband, Lanyard etc or where on the body: Arm, Chest, Waist etc)). Just that it must be clearly visible at all times whilst carrying out licensable activities.
CLARIFICATION( Of the Act, Of the Statutory Instrument, With Legal Standing & Obligation): If a licensed individual is, eg: wearing a suit and their license is displayed in a lanyard the licensed individual should make all efforts to ensure their license is clearly visible. Example: Their is a possible breach if the license was arranged in such a way that it is hidden to one side or placed in an inside pocket so as to conceal their license. It is accepted that whilst carrying out their duties a license could, reasonably, become concealed from the view. However it is the licensed person's obligation to correct this as soon as reasonably possible so that the license is clearly displayed.
ALLLOWED EXEMPTION: Persons holding a Close Protection License may have legitimate cause to conceal their license for the safety of any person(s) they are engaged in licensable activities with and/or their personal safety or that of the public. This exemption still requires the licensed person(s) to produce upon demand a valid license to a Police Constable carrying out Official Duties, a Local Licensing Officer ( who has presented valid Identification) and/or an SIA Enforcement Officer correctly identifying themselves as soon as the situation facilitates it being safe to do so.
Those lot, from a visual assessment, were highly unlikely to be CP Qualified so marching anyone, anywhere without their license on show is a breach. Being on TV - Doesn't matter a bit. Being employed by a Council - Irrelevant. It was an event open to the public so it's even more so important( for reference I could be on my own, in the middle of a field, surrounded by 5 other fields on every side and the nearest dwelling 10 miles away. I'd still be in breach if I didn't wear and display my license as laid out in the Act.)
IF anyone thrown out wants to seek more info then it is a legal requirement of the employer to have accurate & up to date records of those working at XYZ. The client ( could be the premises owner. the London Assembly.. whoever). must also have a complete record including names and license numbers( The venue management or Council Chambers Office would be a good 1st port of call). By Law any member of the public requesting so must be provided with both the full license number and name of the SIA license holder they are raising an issue with. Council or not. It is an offence to withhold this information and/or fail to provide such within a time period that could be considered reasonable. There is no requirement for how the request is made( Verbal, written, In-Person).
This isn't coming from someone whose got beef with doorman. I worked in the industry for nearly 20 years and sat on numerous steering & consultation entities during that time. The job is the job. It's done right or not at all. We're all accountable and who the client is doesn't magically mean you don't have to comply or can make it up as you go.
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16