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 Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote: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.

She can reply if she so wished to the media herself, there is nothing stopping her from giving her side of the story.
It would actually defend her case more if she did and the employer would then have their hands tied if they did anything to her.
You really cannot think anything through can you.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:47 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote: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.

She can reply if she so wished to the media herself, there is nothing stopping her from giving her side of the story.
It would actually defend her case more if she did and the employer would then have their hands tied if they did anything to her.
You really cannot think anything through can you.

I don't think they'd like it - not whilst the investigation is going on. Do you know anything about retail and how complaints are dealt with?

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:47 pm

eddie wrote: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.

Sorry that is abusrd reasoning.
Just because a person does not directly involve themselves with my comments does not mean they agree
I get called militant, sexist, racist, thug, you name it, but I dont cry over it Eddie
No I do not think they are but things get heated.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

She can reply if she so wished to the media herself, there is nothing stopping her from giving her side of the story.
It would actually defend her case more if she did and the employer would then have their hands tied if they did anything to her.
You really cannot think anything through can you.

I don't think they'd like it - not whilst the investigation is going on. Do you know anything about retail and how complaints are dealt with?

It does not matter if they would like it, they now would have to be very careful how they then handled the situation, as she has gone public also defending herself. I know lots about employee rights, being as I am in charge of people.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:50 pm

This was my first post on this subject.

I don't really believe the story. There may have been an incident of some kind, but I find it very hard to believe that a cashier would yell in that manner and tell customers to get out. I also find it hard to believe that two other members of staff would refuse to get the manager.

Did she actually say that she disapproved of them because they were gay, or did she just disapprove of people canoodling at her checkout? They said they had just picked up some washing powder, so were they actually at the checkout anyway?

I also think it's a bit unfair on her because they are free to whinge on the internet, but she is not - she's probably been told not to comment.

This was Didge's reponse:

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

He repeated that several times in different ways.

Where in my post is there any indication that my views are down to me being a "hateful Christian"?

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:51 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:This was my first post on this subject.

I don't really believe the story. There may have been an incident of some kind, but I find it very hard to believe that a cashier would yell in that manner and tell customers to get out. I also find it hard to believe that two other members of staff would refuse to get the manager.

Did she actually say that she disapproved of them because they were gay, or did she just disapprove of people canoodling at her checkout? They said they had just picked up some washing powder, so were they actually at the checkout anyway?

I also think it's a bit unfair on her because they are free to whinge on the internet, but she is not - she's probably been told not to comment.

This was Didge's reponse:

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

He repeated that several times in different ways.

Where in my post is there any indication that my views are down to me being a "hateful Christian"?

Still trying to drag on a fight, when everyone except you has moved on.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:51 pm

Customer services get complaints all the time, and customers contact head office all the time with complaints. Why is this alleged incident in the news?

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:52 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:This was my first post on this subject.

This was Didge's reponse:

He repeated that several times in different ways.

Where in my post is there any indication that my views are down to me being a "hateful Christian"?

Still trying to drag on a fight, when everyone except you has moved on.

I hope you have moved on and there will be no more abuse like that from you.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:52 pm

The only reason you are doing that as well rags is you are coming off worse in this debate, so you now try poorly to deflect to things stated earlier.
I suggest you move on, as its not buying

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Customer services get complaints all the time, and customers contact head office all the time with complaints. Why is this alleged incident in the news?

You are just going around in circles with your points.

by Eilzel Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:53 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.

Can you tell me exactly what it is I have said that is nasty? Or where I have referred to either raggs or nems as homophobes?

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:55 pm

Cuchulain wrote:The only reason you are doing that as well rags is you are coming off worse in this debate, so you now try poorly to deflect to things stated earlier.
I suggest you move on, as its not buying

No I'm not coming off worse. You think anyone who disagrees with you is coming off worse.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:55 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Customer services get complaints all the time, and customers contact head office all the time with complaints. Why is this alleged incident in the news?

You are just going around in circles with your points.

That was quite a new point. All your points have been the same.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

You are just going around in circles with your points.

That was quite a new point. All your points have been the same.

Its not a new point, you ask why would two homosexuals who have just been abused in a well known store would go public.
You combat such hate by bringing it to the public attention
Its just you rehasing the same lame p[oints

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:The only reason you are doing that as well rags is you are coming off worse in this debate, so you now try poorly to deflect to things stated earlier.
I suggest you move on, as its not buying

No I'm not coming off worse. You think anyone who disagrees with you is coming off worse.

You clearly are when you cannot move on, its a tell Rags

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:57 pm

Eilzel 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.

Can you tell me exactly what it is I have said that is nasty? Or where I have referred to either raggs or nems as homophobes?

What did you mean by this?

Though to be fair, nothing either of you has said in this thread is at all surprising.

by Eilzel Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:58 pm

Ok, I see you already retracted me being nasty or accusing anyone of homophobia. Sorry Eds x

And no I didn't challenge didge. But to be fair my signature kind of lays out my stance here. I have no interest defending people who are willing to tolerate homophobia (alleged as it may be at this stage), however small it may be. And as neither has even implied opposition to the woman IF she did say what she said then c'est la vie.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:58 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No I'm not coming off worse. You think anyone who disagrees with you is coming off worse.

You clearly are when you cannot move on, its a tell Rags

You're the one carrying it on. Now just do one - your argumentative nature is pathetic.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:59 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

You clearly are when you cannot move on, its a tell Rags

You're the one carrying it on. Now just do one - your argumentative nature is pathetic.

You prove my point yet again, because yopu cannot let it go, it shows you are now getting desperate

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:00 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're the one carrying it on. Now just do one - your argumentative nature is pathetic.

You prove my point yet again, because yopu cannot let it go, it shows you are now getting desperate

You're the desperate one. Now knock yourself out - you will reply and it will be obvious that it's you carrying it on, not me.

by Eilzel Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Can you tell me exactly what it is I have said that is nasty? Or where I have referred to either raggs or nems as homophobes?

What did you mean by this?

Though to be fair, nothing either of you has said in this thread is at all surprising.

That you and Nems focus on anything but actual homophobia- that isn't saying you are homophobic. I can't remember exact occasions but I do know this isn't the only time this has happened.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:01 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What did you mean by this?

That you and Nems focus on anything but actual homophobia- that isn't saying you are homophobic. I can't remember exact occasions but I do know this isn't the only time this has happened.

Well maybe I just think there are issues to discuss other than homophobia.

by Eilzel Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

That you and Nems focus on anything but actual homophobia- that isn't saying you are homophobic. I can't remember exact occasions but I do know this isn't the only time this has happened.

Well maybe I just think there are issues to discuss other than homophobia.

In general yes; in threads about gay issues it seems you prefer to address anything but.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

You prove my point yet again, because yopu cannot let it go, it shows you are now getting desperate

You're the desperate one. Now knock yourself out - you will reply and it will be obvious that it's you carrying it on, not me.

I rest my case.

by eddie Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:02 pm

Eilzel wrote:Ok, I see you already retracted me being nasty or accusing anyone of homophobia. Sorry Eds x

And no I didn't challenge didge. But to be fair my signature kind of lays out my stance here. I have no interest defending people who are willing to tolerate homophobia (alleged as it may be at this stage), however small it may be. And as neither has even implied opposition to the woman IF she did say what she said then c'est la vie.

Got ya x

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:03 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

That you and Nems focus on anything but actual homophobia- that isn't saying you are homophobic. I can't remember exact occasions but I do know this isn't the only time this has happened.

Well maybe I just think there are issues to discuss other than homophobia.

Yet you have just spend over 6 pages denying homophobia here.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:04 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well maybe I just think there are issues to discuss other than homophobia.

In general yes; in threads about gay issues it seems you prefer to address anything but.

You're assuming that this alleged abuse was homophobic anyway. The guy hurriedly added on something about her calling them "misses" or something to convey that impression.

Not all negative things said to gay people are homophobic.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:04 pm

eddie wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Ok, I see you already retracted me being nasty or accusing anyone of homophobia. Sorry Eds x

And no I didn't challenge didge. But to be fair my signature kind of lays out my stance here. I have no interest defending people who are willing to tolerate homophobia (alleged as it may be at this stage), however small it may be. And as neither has even implied opposition to the woman IF she did say what she said then c'est la vie.

Got ya x

I guess it's like my tendency to defend retail staff eddie.

by Eilzel Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:05 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well maybe I just think there are issues to discuss other than homophobia.

Yet you have just spend over 6 pages denying homophobia here.

Exactly, I'd understand ignoring gay threads and engaging in others- but to go on a thread about someone giving verbal crap to a gay couple ONLY to call them attention seeking liars- that is still discussing homophobia.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:05 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

In general yes; in threads about gay issues it seems you prefer to address anything but.

You're assuming that this alleged abuse was homophobic anyway. The guy hurriedly added on something about her calling them "misses" or something to convey that impression.

Not all negative things said to gay people are homophobic.

Words fail me

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:05 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Yet you have just spend over 6 pages denying homophobia here.

Exactly, I'd understand ignoring gay threads and engaging in others- but to go on a thread about someone giving verbal crap to a gay couple ONLY to call them attention seeking liars- that is still discussing homophobia.

Well you clearly haven't looked at their Twitter pages Les. Laughing

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:06 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Yet you have just spend over 6 pages denying homophobia here.

Exactly, I'd understand ignoring gay threads and engaging in others- but to go on a thread about someone giving verbal crap to a gay couple ONLY to call them attention seeking liars- that is still discussing homophobia.

She fails to know when she contradicts herself
Her last post claiming to say whether it was homophobic just was the icing on the cake really in regards to her poor views.
I cannot be bothered any longer to discuss with suich ignornace on the matter.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:09 pm

In terms of geography, that branch of Tesco is large. Unless the dishwasher tablets were really near the checkout, I find it very hard to believe that the cashier would make such a scene - are we really to believe that she shouted at them from a distance? Did she wait until they came to her checkout or what? Laughing

by Eilzel Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:09 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Exactly, I'd understand ignoring gay threads and engaging in others- but to go on a thread about someone giving verbal crap to a gay couple ONLY to call them attention seeking liars- that is still discussing homophobia.

Well you clearly haven't looked at their Twitter pages Les.

I just had a look- a lot of nice things to see there thank Smile

Doesn't mean anything though.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:10 pm

Well from what the lady allegedly said, she could have said it to a heterosexual couple too.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:11 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you clearly haven't looked at their Twitter pages Les.

I just had a look- a lot of nice things to see there thank

Doesn't mean anything though.

I think it does.

by eddie Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well maybe I just think there are issues to discuss other than homophobia.

In general yes; in threads about gay issues it seems you prefer to address anything but.

You're assuming that this alleged abuse was homophobic anyway. The guy hurriedly added on something about her calling them "misses" or something to convey that impression.

Not all negative things said to gay people are homophobic.

How was it not, homophobic??

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:12 pm

Hottie of the day! lol!

by Eilzel Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

I just had a look- a lot of nice things to see there thank

Doesn't mean anything though.

I think it does.

Explain how?

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:14 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.

I can't see that Tesco commented - did they?

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:15 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're assuming that this alleged abuse was homophobic anyway. The guy hurriedly added on something about her calling them "misses" or something to convey that impression.

Not all negative things said to gay people are homophobic.

How was it not, homophobic??

Well this is what he claimed she said:

He wrote: “Basically the BF kissed me on the cheek and woman went ballistic at us saying “how dare you do that here, there are children here, you people are disgusting do that at home you have no right to do that in

“I was like actually we do have a right and I said she didn’t have a right to talk to us like that she started calling us miss and told us to get out and kept going on about children being in the shop.”

Other than the bit about "miss", could that not apply to anyone who was kissing or canoodling?

As I said, I think he's exaggerating anyway.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:17 pm

Nems 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.

I can't see that Tesco commented - did they?

I don't think they have - not head office, other than to say it's being investigated, and they take such allegations seriously.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:18 pm

I see someone is omitting everything from what was claimed to have been said:

"You" people are disgusting'

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:18 pm

Nems 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.

I can't see that Tesco commented - did they?

They have through the manager

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:19 pm

Cuchulain wrote:I see someone is omitting everything from what was claimed to have been said:

"You" people are disgusting'

People who kiss and canoodle in public maybe?

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:19 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Nems wrote:

I can't see that Tesco commented - did they?

They have through the manager

That's not the same thing.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:21 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:I see someone is omitting everything from what was claimed to have been said:

"You" people are disgusting'

People who kiss and canoodle in public maybe?

You fail to understand context don't you.
You people as in gay.
Kissing on the cheek is not even disgusting but a sign of affectioin and love, so how on earth is affection or love disgusting
I bet she would never have said this to a hetrosexual couple because many do this all the time and in front of their own children that is for sure, so its clearly a view to them being gay. That is what you fail to grasp in all of this.

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:21 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

They have through the manager

That's not the same thing.

Yes it is.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:22 pm

Apparently, Pink News have been unable to reach Tesco for an updated comment. Laughing

by Guest Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Apparently, Pink News have been unable to reach Tesco for an updated comment.

Why is that something to smile about?

by Sponsored content