Gay couple [claim] abused by Tesco cashier / (skin colour from page nine)

First topic message reminder :

A gay couple were subjected to a torrent of abuse in a London branch of Tesco after they shared a brief kiss in the store. Steve Luetchford, 28, was shopping with his 25-year-old partner Mattia Pievani at a Tesco branch in Brixton on Friday evening when, they claim, a female cashier verbally abused them. The woman is alleged to have said that the couple should be "ashamed" after she witnessed their intimate moment. When they challenged the woman on her views she continued to insult them, it is claimed.
They then requested that two other staff members refer them to the store manager so that they could lodge a complaint.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/11791755/Gay-couple-abused-by-Tesco-cashier.html

I also think that Tesco should not comment further - it's an internal matter concerning an employee.

Raggamuffin wrote:I also think that Tesco should not comment further - it's an internal matter concerning an employee.

Nope they should make it public and show that they take such things seriously

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The guy claimed it was a peck on the cheek.

How a cashier could even see that if they were in the washing powder/dishwasher tablet aisle remains a mystery.

Easily, the tills in most stores face down an ailse

DOH

It does not matter if it was a peck or not, she has no right as an employee to tell people if they can kiss or not.

How many more times do you need to understand this?

Well if they were doing more than that, she has the right IMO - just as cashiers have the right to tell people that having a phone glued to their ear when they're being served is not on.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Easily, the tills in most stores face down an ailse

DOH

It does not matter if it was a peck or not, she has no right as an employee to tell people if they can kiss or not.

How many more times do you need to understand this?

Well if they were doing more than that, she has the right IMO - just as cashiers have the right to tell people that having a phone glued to their ear when they're being served is not on.

Again as an employee she has no right.
Its also none of their buisness if they are on the phone.
Its no okay to be rude to customers full stop, which shows you do not have a clue about retail company policies.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I also think that Tesco should not comment further - it's an internal matter concerning an employee.

Nope they should make it public and show that they take such things seriously

They could be opening themselves up to a libel case and/or constructive dismissal if she leaves if they can't prove the woman did what the men claimed

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Nope they should make it public and show that they take such things seriously

They could be opening themselves up to a libel case and/or constructive dismissal if she leaves if they can't prove the woman did what the men claimed

Constructive dismissal?




If she is under investigation and leaves then claiming constructive dismissal it would be thrown out before it even started, as you have to go through a greivence policy.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well if they were doing more than that, she has the right IMO - just as cashiers have the right to tell people that having a phone glued to their ear when they're being served is not on.

Again as an employee she has no right.
Its also none of their buisness if they are on the phone.
Its no okay to be rude to customers full stop, which shows you do not have a clue about retail company policies.

It's not for you to say what rights she has - it's up to the employer to decide what their policy is, and whether it's a sackable offence or not. Even then, they would have a hard job to prove that it merited dismissal. Ever heard of employee rights? Remember the cashier at Sainsbury's who refused to serve a customer who was on their phone? That backfired on the customer because the woman got a lot of public support. It's time that some customers learnt some manners.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They could be opening themselves up to a libel case and/or constructive dismissal if she leaves if they can't prove the woman did what the men claimed

Constructive dismissal?




If she is under investigation and leaves then claiming constructive dismissal it would be thrown out before it even started, as you have to go through a greivence policy.

Yes. If they accused her in public, she could leave and claim constructive dismissal unless they could prove that the men were telling the truth.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Again as an employee she has no right.
Its also none of their buisness if they are on the phone.
Its no okay to be rude to customers full stop, which shows you do not have a clue about retail company policies.

It's not for you to say what rights she has - it's up to the employer to decide what their policy is, and whether it's a sackable offence or not. Even then, they would have a hard job to prove that it merited dismissal. Ever heard of employee rights? Remember the cashier at Sainsbury's who refused to serve a customer who was on their phone? That backfired on the customer because the woman got a lot of public support. It's time that some customers learnt some manners.

Its very much company policy for employees to be nice to customers.
What planet are you on that thinks a store would find it acceptable to be rude to customers?
It really does prove why you are an idiot.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Constructive dismissal?




If she is under investigation and leaves then claiming constructive dismissal it would be thrown out before it even started, as you have to go through a greivence policy.

Yes. If they accused her in public, she could leave and claim constructive dismissal unless they could prove that the men were telling the truth.

Not if she has not followed the greivance policy.
Seruiously, you are one thick idiot

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not for you to say what rights she has - it's up to the employer to decide what their policy is, and whether it's a sackable offence or not. Even then, they would have a hard job to prove that it merited dismissal. Ever heard of employee rights? Remember the cashier at Sainsbury's who refused to serve a customer who was on their phone? That backfired on the customer because the woman got a lot of public support. It's time that some customers learnt some manners.

Its very much company policy for employees to be nice to customers.
What planet are you on that thinks a store would find it acceptable to be rude to customers?
It really does prove why you are an idiot.

Of course it's policy, but they're not necessarily going to fire someone for not being nice, unless they make a habit of it.

You want this woman to be fired with no evidence on the say so of these two men. You are on another planet if you think that would be the right thing to do.

In fact, it's more likely that a customer would be banned on the say so of a member of staff than the other way round. Stores are required to protect their staff.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Its very much company policy for employees to be nice to customers.
What planet are you on that thinks a store would find it acceptable to be rude to customers?
It really does prove why you are an idiot.

Of course it's policy, but they're not necessarily going to fire someone for not being nice, unless they make a habit of it.

You want this woman to be fired with no evidence on the say so of these two men. You are on another planet if you think that would be the right thing to do.

You really are thick:


[*]Unacceptable behaviour- We don’t tolerate abuse or unacceptable behaviour in the workplace in any form, whether towards our customers, other colleagues, suppliers or anyone else. Colleagues found to have been engaged in unacceptable behaviour can face serious consequences such as disciplinary action, including dismissal, and potentially legal action. This means that we should always aim to create a welcoming and inclusive work environment, and encourage colleagues  to do the same. Treat everyone as you would like to be treated. We should never engage in behaviour that might be considered to create a hostile or intimidating work environment, including making inappropriate jokes or comments. Please do not spread malicious rumours or use Company resources to share communications that might  be considered derogatory, defamatory, harassing, pornographic or otherwise offensive or inappropriate. If you feel that you have been the victim of discrimination, bullying or harassment or other unacceptable behaviour, you should contact your Manager, Personnel Manager or confidential Protector Line

https://www.ourtesco.com/office-handbook/your-conduct/code-of-business-conduct/

In fact, it sounds like this chap wants all the staff he spoke to to be dealt with, not just her.

They'll close ranks - you'll see.

Raggamuffin wrote:In fact, it sounds like this chap wants all the staff he spoke to to be dealt with, not just her.

They'll close ranks - you'll see.

Unacceptable behaviour- We don’t tolerate abuse or unacceptable behaviour in the workplace in any form, whether towards our customers, other colleagues, suppliers or anyone else. Colleagues found to have been engaged in unacceptable behaviour can face serious consequences such as disciplinary action, including dismissal, and potentially legal action. This means that we should always aim to create a welcoming and inclusive work environment, and encourage colleagues  to do the same. Treat everyone as you would like to be treated. We should never engage in behaviour that might be considered to create a hostile or intimidating work environment, including making inappropriate jokes or comments. Please do not spread malicious rumours or use Company resources to share communications that might  be considered derogatory, defamatory, harassing, pornographic or otherwise offensive or inappropriate. If you feel that you have been the victim of discrimination, bullying or harassment or other unacceptable behaviour, you should contact your Manager, Personnel Manager or confidential Protector Line





https://www.ourtesco.com/office-handbook/your-conduct/code-of-business-conduct/

What you are missing Didge is the element of proof. There is only these guys' word for it that the woman was abusive to them. If they can't prove it, they can't just accuse her in public or sack her.

Oh, he's resorted to spamming now. Case closed in my favour.

Raggamuffin wrote:What you are missing Didge is the element of proof. There is only these guys' word for it that the woman was abusive to them. If they can't prove it, they can't just accuse her in public or sack her.

I just proved you were uttely wrong to think employees can say what they like to customers.
Like I said, you are an idiot

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What you are missing Didge is the element of proof. There is only these guys' word for it that the woman was abusive to them. If they can't prove it, they can't just accuse her in public or sack her.

I just proved you were uttely wrong to think employees can say what they like to customers.
Like I said, you are an idiot

But where is your proof that she did say any of that?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I just proved you were uttely wrong to think employees can say what they like to customers.
Like I said, you are an idiot

But where is your proof that she did say any of that?

The gay couple who do not stand to gain anything from this.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But where is your proof that she did say any of that?

The gay couple who do not stand to gain anything from this.

Are you kidding? Have you seen their Twitter accounts?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

The gay couple who do not stand to gain anything from this.

Are you kidding? Have you seen their Twitter accounts?

No not kidding at all.
Again they do not stand to gain anything as they are not seeking compensation

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you kidding? Have you seen their Twitter accounts?

No not kidding at all.
Again they do not stand to gain anything as they are not seeking compensation

There are more ways to gain other than financially-speaking.

One of them even got himself on the telly ...

Raggamuffin wrote:One of them even got himself on the telly ...

How is that a gain?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

No not kidding at all.
Again they do not stand to gain anything as they are not seeking compensation

There are more ways to gain other than financially-speaking.

But you offer no reason for what gains you think they are after.
You are just providing me with a load of waffle

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There are more ways to gain other than financially-speaking.

But you offer no reason for what gains you think they are after.
You are just providing me with a load of waffle

I don't know what they can gain, I can only give possible reasons. Attention is one of them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

But you offer no reason for what gains you think they are after.
You are just providing me with a load of waffle

I don't know what they can gain, I can only give possible reasons. Attention is one of them.

So you have nothing.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't know what they can gain, I can only give possible reasons. Attention is one of them.

So you have nothing.

You don't think that attention-seeking exists?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

So you have nothing.

You don't think that attention-seeking exists?

Of course attention seeking exists, but you make out this is a gain, how?
Like I say you are just giving me waffle
There is little reason to doubt there story like I said.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't think that attention-seeking exists?

Of course attention seeking exists, but you make out this is a gain, how?
Like I say you are just giving me waffle
There is little reason to doubt there story like I said.

Well they can get on the telly, and get some outrage going in Pink News for a start.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Of course attention seeking exists, but you make out this is a gain, how?
Like I say you are just giving me waffle
There is little reason to doubt there story like I said.

Well they can get on the telly, and get some outrage going in Pink News for a start.

Again how is that a gain?

I found this video a while back, and it amused me. A customer got her phone camera ready in order to film the cashier. The cashier thought she was texting so she waited before she spoke to the customer. The customer got arsy about it.

Now that cashier should have told that customer that she was rude and obnoxious.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ4zi5FDPAM

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well they can get on the telly, and get some outrage going in Pink News for a start.

Again how is that a gain?

Attention.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Again how is that a gain?

Attention.

Again how is that a gain in this instance?
I can answer this for you as you are such a simpleton.

A gain would be something like sympathy, that is a gain, as attention counts for little if people do not sympathize with you.
You see I even have to help you out understand something here.
So the thing they would gain is sympathy, which is a not a valid reason to claim they are lying.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Attention.

Again how is that a gain in this instance?
I can answer this for you as you are such a simpleton.

A gain would be something like sympathy, that is a gain, as attention counts for little if people do not sympathize with you.
You see I even have to help you out understand something here.
So the thing they would gain is sympathy, which is a not a valid reason to claim they are lying.

So their photos are not all over the press now then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Again how is that a gain in this instance?
I can answer this for you as you are such a simpleton.

A gain would be something like sympathy, that is a gain, as attention counts for little if people do not sympathize with you.
You see I even have to help you out understand something here.
So the thing they would gain is sympathy, which is a not a valid reason to claim they are lying.

So their photos are not all over the press now then?

What about photo's?
Again irrelevant.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So their photos are not all over the press now then?

What about photo's?
Again irrelevant.

You have a lot to learn Didge. Try thinking outside of the box ...

lol learn from you rags, I very much doubt it.
You cannot offer a valid reason to why you think they would be lying.

How many straight couples do you see kissing at the till?

Nuff said.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:How many straight couples do you see kissing at the till?

Nuff said.

Plenty.

Enough said

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:How many straight couples do you see kissing at the till?

Nuff said.

Plenty.

Enough said

You are a liar.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Plenty.

Enough said

You are a liar.

Wrong. You just clearly do not get out much

So a wannabe actor gets a shed load of publicity...
Next step big brother? Jobs a good'un

Eilzel wrote:Whatever the reasons Nems and Rags, it is clear you see complaining on social media as a bigger problem than insulting people in public for showing very mild affection (allegedly or otherwise). Though to be fair, nothing either of you has said in this thread is at all surprising.

I do hope the air isn't too thin to breathe up there Les. I did not pass comment on the woman's behaviour. I gave my opinion on the need some have to live their lives on Twitter.
Now you are going to have, a some point, to accept that because someone is gay it does not make them automatically nice/ honest/truthful or in the right.
You worry about a pair of self promoting, narcissistic wannabes and others like me will worry about the true victims of homophobia,racism,bigotry and hate.

Nems wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Whatever the reasons Nems and Rags, it is clear you see complaining on social media as a bigger problem than insulting people in public for showing very mild affection (allegedly or otherwise). Though to be fair, nothing either of you has said in this thread is at all surprising.

I do hope the air isn't too thin to breathe up there Les. I did not pass comment on the woman's behaviour. I gave my opinion on the need some have to live their lives on Twitter.
Now you are going to have, a some point, to accept that because someone is gay it does not make them automatically nice/ honest/truthful or in the right.
You worry about a pair of self promoting, narcissistic wannabes and others like me will worry about the true victims of homophobia,racism,bigotry and hate.

True victims.
So you are saying point blank they are lying, even though they could very well be victims.
You seem obsessed more with if people place themselves in thew public domain than if they are victims.
That is not showing or caring that they might very well be victims.
Eilzel was spot on

No you didn't pass comment on her behaviour Nems, because you instantly judge their online behaviour as more noteworthy.

Eilzel wrote:No you didn't pass comment on her behaviour Nems, because you instantly judge their online behaviour as more noteworthy.

I did not pass comment on it because I didn't hear it or see it. You would condemn without any proof and without her having any right of reply? Isn't there a word for that?
I commented on their behaviour because I think it was unseemly and unfair.


Now brace yourself Les, that doesn't make me homophobic.

You have to stop accepting everything at face value because it was said by a gay person. That is lazy sloppy and narrow minded, all it does is feed those who think gay men and women are all raving militant prima donnas that think the world owes them.

Nems wrote:

Eilzel wrote:No you didn't pass comment on her behaviour Nems, because you instantly judge their online behaviour as more noteworthy.

I did not pass comment on it because I didn't hear it or see it. You would condemn without any proof and without her having any right of reply? Isn't there a word for that?
I commented on their behaviour because I think it was unseemly and unfair.


Now brace yourself Les, that doesn't make me homophobic.

You have to stop accepting everything at face value because it was said by a gay person. That is lazy sloppy and narrow minded, all it does is feed those who think gay men and women are all raving militant prima donnas that think the world owes them.

Contradiction alert

Does this sound like the actions of two people lying:

Mr Luetchford says he wants to ensure something is done to stop it happening again.
"I'm not expecting to ruin anyone's lives or anything like that," he said.
"But at the same time, I don't want someone to get a slap on the wrist and think it's OK to do that to another person."

Those dismissing this based off attention is them having issue with people going public with their stories where such things should be made public. Its very clear they are not out to get anything from Tesco's or even for the person to be sacked, they just wish it does not happen to others.