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

by Guest Sun Aug 09, 2015 7:31 am

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

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:28 pm

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

Well I certainly do.

by eddie Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:58 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

How is it sexist if you are butt ugly. Its an educated guess that you are butt ugly.
If you cannot take the heat do not dish it out, its that simple but my view we could shorten the war with ISIS by sending you 3 idiots is very plausible.

Educated guess? Please say what you're basing that on.

You are the one dishing out crap on this thread - and in other threads too. Is this part of your master plan to disrupt this forum? I hope the mods are keeping an eye on you ....

Ahhhhh poor little baby ha ha ha ha

Yes I have no doubt you are very butt ugly

Okay didge enough please!
Abusive Personal comments aren't acceptable.

Please stop.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:59 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Ahhhhh poor little baby ha ha ha ha

Yes I have no doubt you are very butt ugly

Okay didge enough please!
Abusive Personal comments aren't acceptable.

Please stop.

Happy too Eddie, but its not just me.

by eddie Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
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.

l

It's it against the law nor company policy for customers to kiss or be on the phone rags.
That's just your personal view.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:01 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Ahhhhh poor little baby ha ha ha ha

Yes I have no doubt you are very butt ugly

Okay didge enough please!
Abusive Personal comments aren't acceptable.

Please stop.

Thank you eddie.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:02 pm

eddie 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.
l

It's it against the law nor company policy for customers to kiss or be on the phone rags.
That's just your personal view.

Yes it is. We're not talking about the law anyway are we?

I said early on that my views were largely based on my tendency to side with retail staff.

by eddie Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:04 pm

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

Nuff said.

My other half and I kiss and hold hands a lot whilst shopping (or anywhere actually)

So there's one heterosexual couple for you Zack.

Gay couple [claim] abused by Tesco cashier / (skin colour from page nine) - Page 6 1069003512

Gay couple [claim] abused by Tesco cashier / (skin colour from page nine) - Page 6 1069003512

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:04 pm

Actually, some small shop owners are deciding that customers should not be on the phone when they're being served. I think people are tired of the rudeness. I was behind a woman who was being served and she never got off her phone the whole time - I really wanted to say something.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:07 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
eddie wrote:

Okay didge enough please!
Abusive Personal comments aren't acceptable.

Please stop.

Happy too Eddie, but its not just me.

It's mostly you. I gave my opinion in this thread, and you were abusive straightaway.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:09 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Happy too Eddie, but its not just me.

It's mostly you. I gave my opinion in this thread, and you were abusive straightaway.

Does not matter who does most, the point is for everyone, you are just badly trying to excuse when you do
You did not need to say anything here, but clearly have intent to keep it going.
That is pathetic

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:09 pm

Retail staff should be able to sit there and wait if people aren't giving their full attention to the task in hand. People should not be on their phones at the checkout, they should not throw money at the cashier, and they should not be kissing and canoodling.

by eddie Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:09 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Actually, some small shop owners are deciding that customers should not be on the phone when they're being served. I think people are tired of the rudeness. I was behind a woman who was being served and she never got off her phone the whole time - I really wanted to say something.

I complete agree with you that it's rude to be in the phone - unless it's an emergency of course - but it's not against the law.
Also, some shop staff are on the internal phone when serving sometimes and I find that rude.

People kissing in tesco isn't really a massive deal is it?

And for the record didge and les, I don't think rags and nems are homophobic in the least! just because they don't automarically agree with a gay person doesn't make them against that person or gays per se.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:11 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's mostly you. I gave my opinion in this thread, and you were abusive straightaway.

Does not matter who does most, the point is for everyone, you are just badly trying to excuse when you do
You did not need to say anything here, but clearly have intent to keep it going.
That is pathetic

No, I'm not having that. You've been disgusting in this thread and others, and it's right that you should be pulled up for it. You make sexist and vulgar remarks, you insult people if their opinion differs from your opinion, and you're generally rude and uncouth.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:13 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Actually, some small shop owners are deciding that customers should not be on the phone when they're being served. I think people are tired of the rudeness. I was behind a woman who was being served and she never got off her phone the whole time - I really wanted to say something.

I complete agree with you that it's rude to be in the phone - unless it's an emergency of course - but it's not against the law.
Also, some shop staff are on the internal phone when serving sometimes and I find that rude.

People kissing in tesco isn't really a massive deal is it?

And for the record didge and les, I don't think rags and nems are homophobic in the least! just because they don't automarically agree with a gay person doesn't make them against that person or gays per se.

As I said, we're not talking about the law.

Retail staff are at a disadvantage from the start because the customers always think they're right. If there's only one person to answer the phone, of course they sometimes have to multitask. The customers don't though. I would say that 99% of customers are polite and pleasant, but it's the 1% who aren't that the staff remember most.

What do you think that this couple going on Twitter and Facebook when the woman can't defend herself?

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:14 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Actually, some small shop owners are deciding that customers should not be on the phone when they're being served. I think people are tired of the rudeness. I was behind a woman who was being served and she never got off her phone the whole time - I really wanted to say something.

I complete agree with you that it's rude to be in the phone - unless it's an emergency of course - but it's not against the law.
Also, some shop staff are on the internal phone when serving sometimes and I find that rude.

People kissing in tesco isn't really a massive deal is it?

And for the record didge and les, I don't think rags and nems are homophobic in the least! just because they don't automarically agree with a gay person doesn't make them against that person or gays per se.

Its not a case of homophobia with Nems and Rags, I agree, but mere stupidity, as both dismiss the claim made based on their view they are attention seeking. They take this as more of an issue that people suffereing abuse. When the reality is such discrmination suffered by people should be made public.
Thier view is they are lying where there is little to no reason why they were lie here.
They even state they just want to ensure this does not happen again. They sought no compensation or for the person to lose their job even. That does not point to two people lying, yet they immediately assume they are based off an irrational view of attention seeking.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:15 pm

It's absurd that some people are labelled homophobic because they didn't immediately side with this couple. Not only that, but a certain person decided that my views are down to being a "hateful Christian". This kind of nonsense should stop.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Does not matter who does most, the point is for everyone, you are just badly trying to excuse when you do
You did not need to say anything here, but clearly have intent to keep it going.
That is pathetic

No, I'm not having that. You've been disgusting in this thread and others, and it's right that you should be pulled up for it. You make sexist and vulgar remarks, you insult people if their opinion differs from your opinion, and you're generally rude and uncouth.

See you only have interest in keep it going.
Its pathetic

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:16 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:It's absurd that some people are labelled homophobic because they didn't immediately side with this couple. Not only that, but a certain person decided that my views are down to being a "hateful Christian". This kind of nonsense should stop.

Yet you are happy to label people militant Athiests, or sexist or many other crap you come out with.
Practice what you preach

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:18 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
eddie wrote:

I complete agree with you that it's rude to be in the phone - unless it's an emergency of course - but it's not against the law.
Also, some shop staff are on the internal phone when serving sometimes and I find that rude.

People kissing in tesco isn't really a massive deal is it?

And for the record didge and les, I don't think rags and nems are homophobic in the least! just because they don't automarically agree with a gay person doesn't make them against that person or gays per se.

Its not a case of homophobia with Nems and Rags, I agree, but mere stupidity, as both dismiss the claim made based on their view they are attention seeking. They take this as more of an issue that people suffereing abuse. When the reality is such discrmination suffered by people should be made public.
Thier view is they are lying where there is little to no reason why they were lie here.
They even state they just want to ensure this does not happen again. They sought no compensation or for the person to lose their job even. That does not point to two people lying, yet they immediately assume they are based off an irrational view of attention seeking.

Oh, well that's not what you said at first is it?

I have no doubt you do not believe the story because you are are a hateful Christian which is ironic.

As explained,. your reasoning here comes not from any rational reasoning but hate formed from your faith.

You do not believe because you are hateful towards homosexuals/

I think these men are exaggerating. I do not believe that the cashier would bellow at them from her cashier position.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:19 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No, I'm not having that. You've been disgusting in this thread and others, and it's right that you should be pulled up for it. You make sexist and vulgar remarks, you insult people if their opinion differs from your opinion, and you're generally rude and uncouth.

See you only have interest in keep it going.
Its pathetic

I will report you next time you abuse me. You are disruptive and hateful.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:21 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Its not a case of homophobia with Nems and Rags, I agree, but mere stupidity, as both dismiss the claim made based on their view they are attention seeking. They take this as more of an issue that people suffereing abuse. When the reality is such discrmination suffered by people should be made public.
Thier view is they are lying where there is little to no reason why they were lie here.
They even state they just want to ensure this does not happen again. They sought no compensation or for the person to lose their job even. That does not point to two people lying, yet they immediately assume they are based off an irrational view of attention seeking.

Oh, well that's not what you said at first is it?

I have no doubt you do not believe the story because you are are a hateful Christian which is ironic.

As explained,. your reasoning here comes not from any rational reasoning but hate formed from your faith.

You do not believe because you are hateful towards homosexuals/

I think these men are exaggerating. I do not believe that the cashier would bellow at them from her cashier position.

Yet you offer no reason why they would.
As i say they are not looking to seek compensation or for the person to get the sack, they only want that others do not suffer the same.
That is not two people lying or exagerating. The fact you seem to think homosexuals do not suffer such discrmination, is where your fault starts from.

by Eilzel Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:21 pm

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.

I'm taking the story as read because otherwise we may as well forget debating anything for god sake, if they turn out to be lying then I'll speak against them.

I didn't say you were homophobic, I said you were more irritated by people complaining on social media than by people allegedly expressing homophobic views. Which isn't as bad. But it is still pretty unbalanced.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Retail staff should be able to sit there and wait if people aren't giving their full attention to the task in hand. People should not be on their phones at the checkout, they should not throw money at the cashier, and they should not be kissing and canoodling.

There would soon be complaints if the cashier was on the phone or not paying attention.
It's manners no more than manners

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:23 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh, well that's not what you said at first is it?

I think these men are exaggerating. I do not believe that the cashier would bellow at them from her cashier position.

Yet you offer no reason why they would.
As i say they are not looking to seek compensation or for the person to get the sack, they only want that others do not suffer the same.
That is not two people lying or exagerating. The fact you seem to think homosexuals do not suffer such discrmination, is where your fault starts from.

I already told you. Think about it - people now know the names of these men, right? They have been depicted as "victims", right?

They are grown men who should pull themselves together and stop this attention seeking.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:23 pm

Nems wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Retail staff should be able to sit there and wait if people aren't giving their full attention to the task in hand. People should not be on their phones at the checkout, they should not throw money at the cashier, and they should not be kissing and canoodling.

There would soon be complaints if the cashier was on the phone or not paying attention.
It's manners no more than manners

That's right, and also mistakes can happen if customers are not paying attention.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Yet you offer no reason why they would.
As i say they are not looking to seek compensation or for the person to get the sack, they only want that others do not suffer the same.
That is not two people lying or exagerating. The fact you seem to think homosexuals do not suffer such discrmination, is where your fault starts from.

I already told you. Think about it - people now know the names of these men, right? They have been depicted as "victims", right?

They are grown men who should pull themselves together and stop this attention seeking.

They are men that has suffered abuse and who should bring this into the public domain.
You again offer the most pathetic reason to claim they are lying where again, everything points to them telling the truth.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:24 pm

I was once so busy yacking to a sales assistant that he forgot to give me my change, and I forgot to ask for it. Laughing

by Eilzel Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:25 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Actually, some small shop owners are deciding that customers should not be on the phone when they're being served. I think people are tired of the rudeness. I was behind a woman who was being served and she never got off her phone the whole time - I really wanted to say something.

I complete agree with you that it's rude to be in the phone - unless it's an emergency of course - but it's not against the law.
Also, some shop staff are on the internal phone when serving sometimes and I find that rude.

People kissing in tesco isn't really a massive deal is it?

And for the record didge and les, I don't think rags and nems are homophobic in the least! just because they don't automarically agree with a gay person doesn't make them against that person or gays per se.

I haven't said either of them is homophobic- unless you can point out where I did.

I have said I think having a go at people complaining on social media and making that out to be WORSE than homophobia to be pretty shitty though- which I stand by.

People thinking I've called anyone here homophobic are jumping to conclusions.......

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:25 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I already told you. Think about it - people now know the names of these men, right? They have been depicted as "victims", right?

They are grown men who should pull themselves together and stop this attention seeking.

They are men that has suffered abuse and who should bring this into the public domain.
You again offer the most pathetic reason to claim they are lying where again, everything points to them telling the truth.

I disagree, and there's no point in saying the same thing all the time, so I suggest you just accept I disagree with you.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:26 pm

Eilzel wrote:
eddie wrote:

I complete agree with you that it's rude to be in the phone - unless it's an emergency of course - but it's not against the law.
Also, some shop staff are on the internal phone when serving sometimes and I find that rude.

People kissing in tesco isn't really a massive deal is it?

And for the record didge and les, I don't think rags and nems are homophobic in the least! just because they don't automarically agree with a gay person doesn't make them against that person or gays per se.

I haven't said either of them is homophobic- unless you can point out where I did.

I have said I think having a go at people complaining on social media and making that out to be WORSE than homophobia to be pretty shitty though- which I stand by.

People thinking I've called anyone here homophobic are jumping to conclusions.......

So do you think it's fair that they can say what they like on social media, but the woman can't really defend herself? Do you think it's right that Tesco apologised before they even investigated the alleged incident?

I don't.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:27 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

They are men that has suffered abuse and who should bring this into the public domain.
You again offer the most pathetic reason to claim they are lying where again, everything points to them telling the truth.

I disagree, and there's no point in saying the same thing all the time, so I suggest you just accept I disagree with you.

Again the bases for your claim just does not add up, espcially as they are only seeking that this does not happen to others

by Eilzel Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

I haven't said either of them is homophobic- unless you can point out where I did.

I have said I think having a go at people complaining on social media and making that out to be WORSE than homophobia to be pretty shitty though- which I stand by.

People thinking I've called anyone here homophobic are jumping to conclusions.......

So do you think it's fair that they can say what they like on social media, but the woman can't really defend herself? Do you think it's right that Tesco apologised before they even investigated the alleged incident?

I don't.

Anyone can say what they like on social media. I certainly find it unlikely they would fabricate the whole incident. But as I say, if it was found otherwise I'd condemn them. But it wont be. Carry on being upset at the nasty gay people raggs.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:29 pm

Actually, I'm not sure that Tesco have apologised. They've said this:

"Everyone is welcome at Tesco so we take any allegations of discrimination extremely seriously.”

That's not the same as an apology. I'll see if they said anything else.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Actually, I'm not sure that Tesco have apologised. They've said this:

"Everyone is welcome at Tesco so we take any allegations of discrimination extremely seriously.”

That's not the same as an apology. I'll see if they said anything else.

They have rang one of them to apologise

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:30 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So do you think it's fair that they can say what they like on social media, but the woman can't really defend herself? Do you think it's right that Tesco apologised before they even investigated the alleged incident?

I don't.

Anyone can say what they like on social media. I certainly find it unlikely they would fabricate the whole incident. But as I say, if it was found otherwise I'd condemn them. But it wont be. Carry on being upset at the nasty gay people raggs.

So you think it's fair then. I thought you might.

It's not a fair fight is it? She can't go on social media and say they're lying. Well she could but her employer might take a dim view of that.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Anyone can say what they like on social media. I certainly find it unlikely they would fabricate the whole incident. But as I say, if it was found otherwise I'd condemn them. But it wont be. Carry on being upset at the nasty gay people raggs.

So you think it's fair then. I thought you might.

It's not a fair fight is it? She can't go on social media and say they're lying. Well she could but her employer might take a dim view of that.

Absurd because she has anonymity.
Why would she need to go on facebook when nobody knows who she is?

by eddie Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:34 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Actually, some small shop owners are deciding that customers should not be on the phone when they're being served. I think people are tired of the rudeness. I was behind a woman who was being served and she never got off her phone the whole time - I really wanted to say something.

I complete agree with you that it's rude to be in the phone - unless it's an emergency of course - but it's not against the law.
Also, some shop staff are on the internal phone when serving sometimes and I find that rude.

People kissing in tesco isn't really a massive deal is it?

And for the record didge and les, I don't think rags and nems are homophobic in the least! just because they don't automarically agree with a gay person doesn't make them against that person or gays per se.

Its not a case of homophobia with Nems and Rags, I agree, but mere stupidity, as both dismiss the claim made based on their view they are attention seeking. They take this as more of an issue that people suffereing abuse. When the reality is such discrmination suffered by people should be made public.
Thier view is they are lying where there is little to no reason why they were lie here.
They even state they just want to ensure this does not happen again. They sought no compensation or for the person to lose their job even. That does not point to two people lying, yet they immediately assume they are based off an irrational view of attention seeking.

I think it's a simple case of nems and rags not immediately believing the men, which is fair enough really, and also it is simply that sometimes two people can read the exact same news story and see two different angles.

I didn't see the need for this to become such a nasty argument tbh, and not just with you either, I'm including les in this.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:34 pm

Hmmm, the chap said the Manager had phoned and apologised. Even if she did, that's not the same as Tesco apologising.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:36 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Its not a case of homophobia with Nems and Rags, I agree, but mere stupidity, as both dismiss the claim made based on their view they are attention seeking. They take this as more of an issue that people suffereing abuse. When the reality is such discrmination suffered by people should be made public.
Thier view is they are lying where there is little to no reason why they were lie here.
They even state they just want to ensure this does not happen again. They sought no compensation or for the person to lose their job even. That does not point to two people lying, yet they immediately assume they are based off an irrational view of attention seeking.

I think it's a simple case of nems and rags not immediately believing the men, which is fair enough really, and also it is simply that sometimes two people can read the exact same news story and see two different angles.

I didn't see the need for this to become such a nasty argument tbh, and not just with you either, I'm including les in this.

You can challenge poor views and to me both raised very poor views, which do not add up to the men who never sought anything other than this does not happen to others.
Eilzel has not been nasty at all, so its is grossly unfair to include him Eddie

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:37 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Hmmm, the chap said the Manager had phoned and apologised. Even if she did, that's not the same as Tesco apologising.

Absurd

He is a representive of Tesco's, with him apologising is done on behalf of Tesco's

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:37 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
eddie wrote:

I think it's a simple case of nems and rags not immediately believing the men, which is fair enough really, and also it is simply that sometimes two people can read the exact same news story and see two different angles.

I didn't see the need for this to become such a nasty argument tbh, and not just with you either, I'm including les in this.

You can challenge poor views and to me both raised very poor views, which do not add up to the men who never sought anything other than this does not happen to others.
Eilzel has not been nasty at all, so its is grossly unfair to include him Eddie

That's not what you did though - read back to where I started to post about this.

I do not think my views are "poor" - I think they're excellent.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

You can challenge poor views and to me both raised very poor views, which do not add up to the men who never sought anything other than this does not happen to others.
Eilzel has not been nasty at all, so its is grossly unfair to include him Eddie

That's not what you did though - read back to where I started to post about this.

I do not think my views are "poor" - I think they're excellent.

They are utterly poor, that bash people for going public with such an important story

by eddie Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:39 pm

Eilzel wrote:
eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Actually, some small shop owners are deciding that customers should not be on the phone when they're being served. I think people are tired of the rudeness. I was behind a woman who was being served and she never got off her phone the whole time - I really wanted to say something.

I complete agree with you that it's rude to be in the phone - unless it's an emergency of course - but it's not against the law.
Also, some shop staff are on the internal phone when serving sometimes and I find that rude.

People kissing in tesco isn't really a massive deal is it?

And for the record didge and les, I don't think rags and nems are homophobic in the least! just because they don't automarically agree with a gay person doesn't make them against that person or gays per se.

I haven't said either of them is homophobic- unless you can point out where I did.

I have said I think having a go at people complaining on social media and making that out to be WORSE than homophobia to be pretty shitty though- which I stand by.

People thinking I've called anyone here homophobic are jumping to conclusions.......

No you didn't say they were homophobic but didn't disagree with didge either.

Look, I'm not sure anyone is actually saying that complaining on social media is worse than homophobia - it's just that's the point that rags and nems both picked up on?

That is what I think anyway. There wasn't a need for it to get silly IMO

For the record, I often think social media can be a double-edged sword when it sones to these things; it's good to let people know of someone has been abusive toward you and highlight the issue, but it can look a little attention-seeking in certain (and not this one IMO) situations.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:40 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Hmmm, the chap said the Manager had phoned and apologised. Even if she did, that's not the same as Tesco apologising.

Absurd

He is a representive of Tesco's, with him apologising is done on behalf of Tesco's

Do you know that the manager is male?

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:40 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not what you did though - read back to where I started to post about this.

I do not think my views are "poor" - I think they're excellent.

They are utterly poor, that bash people for going public with such an important story

I disagree.

by eddie Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:41 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Its not a case of homophobia with Nems and Rags, I agree, but mere stupidity, as both dismiss the claim made based on their view they are attention seeking. They take this as more of an issue that people suffereing abuse. When the reality is such discrmination suffered by people should be made public.
Thier view is they are lying where there is little to no reason why they were lie here.
They even state they just want to ensure this does not happen again. They sought no compensation or for the person to lose their job even. That does not point to two people lying, yet they immediately assume they are based off an irrational view of attention seeking.

I think it's a simple case of nems and rags not immediately believing the men, which is fair enough really, and also it is simply that sometimes two people can read the exact same news story and see two different angles.

I didn't see the need for this to become such a nasty argument tbh, and not just with you either, I'm including les in this.

You can challenge poor views and to me both raised very poor views, which do not add up to the men who never sought anything other than this does not happen to others.
Eilzel has not been nasty at all, so its is grossly unfair to include him Eddie

Yes you're right, I stand corrected: he hasnt been nasty, but he didn't put you right when you implied that nems and rags were homophobic either.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:41 pm

eddie wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

I haven't said either of them is homophobic- unless you can point out where I did.

I have said I think having a go at people complaining on social media and making that out to be WORSE than homophobia to be pretty shitty though- which I stand by.

People thinking I've called anyone here homophobic are jumping to conclusions.......

No you didn't say they were homophobic but didn't disagree with didge either.

Look, I'm not sure anyone is actually saying that complaining on social media is worse than homophobia - it's nuts that's the point that rags and nems both picked up on?

That is what I think anyway. There wasn't a need for it to get silly IMO

For the record, I often think social media can be a double-edged sword when it sones to these things; it's good to let people know of someone has been abusive toward you and highlight the issue, but it can look a little attention-seeking in certain (and not this one IMO) situations.

Why would he have to state on anything that I have said?
Just because he did not does not mean he agreed with me Eddie, that is poor again to place onus on Eilzel to do so.
Again there view is that it is far worse to go public with a claim than suffering discrmination.
Like Eilzel says, that is wrong and to me very worrying what they place of more importance

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:42 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

You can challenge poor views and to me both raised very poor views, which do not add up to the men who never sought anything other than this does not happen to others.
Eilzel has not been nasty at all, so its is grossly unfair to include him Eddie

Yes you're right, I stand corrected: he hasnt been nasty, but he didn't put you right when you implied that nems and rags were homophobic either.

Eddie he is not obligated to put me right, maybe, just maybe he did not have any interest in the fight that I and others were having.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:43 pm

Have you not been reading properly? The point is that this woman can't reply - not without pissing off her employer. That means it's not fair that they can accuse her publically and she can't defend herself publically.

by eddie Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:45 pm

Hmm. Well whenever others (including me) haven't commented or said anything against people being racist you say we aren't standing up to them and that must make us racist by association?
You've said that to me many times a dive argued against it.

The same applies here. If les is answering you and not putting you right - isn't he agreeing with you then?

Look, I don't think nems and rags are homophobic and I don't think you and les think they are either.
But that word was bandied about and I think it should be retracted, or, at the very least, dismissed as wrong.

by Sponsored content