Primark is accused of REWARDING racism after a customer who allegedly said she 'didn't want to be 'served by black people' was personally looked after by a white manager

[*]Do Na Marie from London claimed her daughter had seen racist incident
[*]Alleged incident took place at Primark's branch at Westfield Stratford in London
[*]Customer reportedly said she didn't want to be served by black people
[*]Primark has investigated and found 'no evidence' of racist comments  


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5652545/Primark-accused-REWARDING-racism.html#ixzz5Dep8G0tx 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

What a nasty cow that customer was. I would've shown her the door!

On twice

]Primark has investigated and found 'no evidence' of racist comments

Sounds like someone telling tale tales to me.

For a start, most of the staff at any Primark store you care to go in will be none white.
I imagine ALL of the staff who work in their sweat shops both here and abroad are also none white too.

what a load of balls


A spokesperson for Primark told MailOnline: 'We have investigated this allegation, which included speaking to all employees involved, and found no evidence of any racist comments made in our Westfield Stratford store yesterday.

gelico wrote:

what a load of balls


A spokesperson for Primark told MailOnline: 'We have investigated this allegation, which included speaking to all employees involved, and found no evidence of any racist comments made in our Westfield Stratford store yesterday.

Speaking "to all employees involved"...who wish to keep their jobs, may I suggest? Such pseudo investigations are the foundation of Human Resources Departments everywhere.

Trump would be proud.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

what a load of balls


A spokesperson for Primark told MailOnline: 'We have investigated this allegation, which included speaking to all employees involved, and found no evidence of any racist comments made in our Westfield Stratford store yesterday.

Speaking "to all employees involved"...who wish to keep their jobs, may I suggest?  Such pseudo investigations are the foundation of Human Resources Departments everywhere.

Trump would be proud.

ridiculous quill. why would anyone lose their job over telling the truth.

if i were there and something like that actually happened i would speak up. i would also refuse to serve said person and simply say ''sorry i don't serve racist bigots, you'll have to go somewhere else''

and tbh i think most people would be the same. i can't imagine anyone supporting such a statement

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Speaking "to all employees involved"...who wish to keep their jobs, may I suggest?  Such pseudo investigations are the foundation of Human Resources Departments everywhere.

Trump would be proud.

ridiculous quill.  why would anyone lose their job over telling the truth.

Do I really need to answer that question?  The employer is being threatened, either directly or indirectly.  Their brand is being threatened by an association with discrimination.

gelico wrote:if i were there and something like that actually happened i would speak up. i would also refuse to serve said person and simply say ''sorry i don't serve racist bigots, you'll have to go somewhere else''

and tbh i think most people would be the same. i can't imagine anyone supporting such a statement

That's wonderful, but the employer has a lot more at stake.

In a statement, the retailer said its own investigation found no employee “acted with knowledge of any alleged racist comments”.

“As soon as we became aware of this allegation, we immediately carried out a thorough investigation,” said a spokesman.

“The investigation team spoke at length to all the employees who were in that part of the store at the time and we have also reviewed all relevant CCTV coverage.

He added: “The customer was moved from the exchange/refund area of the store to a sales till in order to pay for her goods. The customer was not moved as a result of her alleged racist comments, because our employees were unaware of them.”

“We would like to reiterate that Primark does not tolerate or condone racism or discrimination of any kind.”

http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/primark-accused-of-rewarding-racist-customer-at-westfield-stratford-city-1-5491511

Didge wrote:“As soon as we became aware of this allegation, we immediately carried out a thorough investigation,” said a spokesman.

“The investigation team spoke at length to all the employees who were in that part of the store at the time and we have also reviewed all relevant CCTV coverage.

He added: “The customer was moved from the exchange/refund area of the store to a sales till in order to pay for her goods. The customer was not moved as a result of her alleged racist comments, because our employees were unaware of them.”

“We would like to reiterate that Primark does not tolerate or condone racism or discrimination of any kind.”

I know what they would like you to believe.  This issue is slightly different: do they present an unbiased picture?

I would feel better if they had found some witnesses without any vested interests, not employees beholden to the employer.  Say, a couple of store customers...an off-duty policeman who overheard the exchange...etc.  A CCTV with audio would give an unbiased depiction.

Total one-sided stories and evidence raise the hackles on the back of my attorney neck.  It's not an investigation with untampered witnesses.

I work with loads of Eastern Europeans, (oh my word they are a delight to work with, not kidding), and I work in retail.
I’ve seen several racist comments aimed at them, I always speak up and so do others.

It does happen - I don’t know if it did at this clothing store as I wasn’t there - but it does happen.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:“As soon as we became aware of this allegation, we immediately carried out a thorough investigation,” said a spokesman.

“The investigation team spoke at length to all the employees who were in that part of the store at the time and we have also reviewed all relevant CCTV coverage.

He added: “The customer was moved from the exchange/refund area of the store to a sales till in order to pay for her goods. The customer was not moved as a result of her alleged racist comments, because our employees were unaware of them.”

“We would like to reiterate that Primark does not tolerate or condone racism or discrimination of any kind.”

I know what they would like you to believe.  This issue is slightly different: do they present an unbiased picture?

I would feel better if they had found some witnesses without any vested interests, not employees beholden to the employer.  Say, a couple of store customers...an off-duty policeman who overheard the exchange...etc.  A CCTV with audio would give an unbiased depiction.

Total one-sided stories and evidence raise the hackles on the back of my attorney neck.  It's not an investigation with untampered witnesses.

Where is all the other witnesses then Quill

She said plenty of other people were in the store and waiting behind this person claimed to have been racist.

No staff member or any other public member has come forward

There is thus, no corroborating evidence

Is it possible, that this was simple a disgruntled customer with a grudge?

Didge wrote:Where is all the other witnesses then Quill

The employer might have thrown all the adverse witness statements away. The Golden Gate Bridge has a transit company (by which they reduce the number of cars on the bridge) and one time I was on a bus when the driver had an accident. Everybody knew out driver was at fault.

As a member of the board, I had a mention about the incident with the transit manager. His (knowing) response: 'You can bet all the adverse witness statements ended up in the bin.' People with a vested interest act on it.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Where is all the other witnesses then Quill

The employer might have thrown all the adverse witness statements away.  The Golden Gate Bridge has a transit company (by which they reduce the number of cars on the bridge) and one time I was on a bus when the driver had an accident.  Everybody knew out driver was at fault.

As a member of the board, I had a mention about the incident with the transit manager.  His (knowing) response: 'You can bet all the adverse witness statements ended up in the bin.'  People with a vested interest act on it.

Really, where is your evidence for the above?

Are you saying he Police cannot interview them?

Again, not one person from the store, whether staff or shoppers have come forward and there is nothing stopping any shoppers coming forward.

So where are they all?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The employer might have thrown all the adverse witness statements away.  The Golden Gate Bridge has a transit company (by which they reduce the number of cars on the bridge) and one time I was on a bus when the driver had an accident.  Everybody knew out driver was at fault.

As a member of the board, I had a mention about the incident with the transit manager.  His (knowing) response: 'You can bet all the adverse witness statements ended up in the bin.'  People with a vested interest act on it.

Really, where is your evidence for the above?

Are you saying he Police cannot interview them?

Again, not one person from the store, whether staff or shoppers have come forward and there is nothing stopping any shoppers coming forward.

So where are they all?

It's not a police matter. It's a civil matter.

Oh, the witnesses might have come forward. But the employer has a vested interest in seeing that they don't get through...especially if their story is not favorable.

If the employer made any effort to collect witness statements, they would have tossed the unfavorable ones.

Quill, you could always look at it another way: the employer would like to be seen to act in the right way, it looks good on them.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Really, where is your evidence for the above?

Are you saying he Police cannot interview them?

Again, not one person from the store, whether staff or shoppers have come forward and there is nothing stopping any shoppers coming forward.

So where are they all?

It's not a police matter.  It's a civil matter.

Oh, the witnesses might have come forward.  But the employer has a vested interest in seeing that they don't get through...especially if their story is not favorable.

If the employer made any effort to collect witness statements, they would have tossed the unfavorable ones.

The witnesses can come forward to the media

Why have none done so?

Why have no staff, where if the staff are trying to be silenced, they could then definetaly go to the media and take Primark to a tribunal

You see, it just does not add up, as the staff would easily go to the media on this and win a massive payout

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not a police matter.  It's a civil matter.

Oh, the witnesses might have come forward.  But the employer has a vested interest in seeing that they don't get through...especially if their story is not favorable.

If the employer made any effort to collect witness statements, they would have tossed the unfavorable ones.

The witnesses can come forward to the media

Why have none done so?

Why have no staff, where if the staff are trying to be silenced, they could then definetaly go to the media and take Primark to a tribunal

You see, it just does not add up, as the staff would easily go to the media on this and win a massive payout

what you say makes sense, didge

i agree with you

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:

The witnesses can come forward to the media

Why have none done so?

Why have no staff, where if the staff are trying to be silenced, they could then definetaly go to the media and take Primark to a tribunal

You see, it just does not add up, as the staff would easily go to the media on this and win a massive payout

what you say makes sense, didge

i agree with you

Thanks

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not a police matter.  It's a civil matter.

Oh, the witnesses might have come forward.  But the employer has a vested interest in seeing that they don't get through...especially if their story is not favorable.

If the employer made any effort to collect witness statements, they would have tossed the unfavorable ones.

The witnesses can come forward to the media

Why have none done so?

Probably don't care.

Dodge wrote:Why have no staff, where if the staff are trying to be silenced, they could then definetaly go to the media and take Primark to a tribunal

Because they could lose their jobs.  You're happily employed, got two kids and a good paycheck...who needs the trouble? Besides, a lot of them might side with the employer, or even be biased themselves. Why get involved?

Didge wrote:You see, it just does not add up, as the staff would easily go to the media on this and win a massive payout

For what?  It's not a law case, it's a PR dilemma for the company.  And witnesses don't get paid, only claimants get paid.  The media might pay a witness for a story if it's salacious enough...but this...   Unless there's strong schadenfreude...like there is with Trump.  This is just newspaper gossip.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

The witnesses can come forward to the media

Why have none done so?

Probably don't care.

Dodge wrote:So you are saying that the staff, of which some would have to be black. Based on the claim, by the customer. That a black staff member received racist remarks and that they have not even come forward?

Odd that do you not think

Because they could lose their jobs.  You're happily employed, got two kids and a good paycheck...who needs the trouble?  Besides, a lot of them might side with the employer, or even be biased themselves.  Why get involved?

Didge wrote:Well actually they are protected by British law, through whistleblowing. So iff the company sacked them, or threatened them with sacking. Not only would the entire staff being able to take Primark tot he cleaners, but Primark would have to pay a massive fine also

For what?  It's not a law case, it's a PR dilemma for the company.  And witnesses don't get paid, only claimants get paid.  The media might pay a witness for a story if it's salacious enough...but this...   Unless there's strong schadenfreude...like there is with Trump.  This is just newspaper gossip.

Its certainly a claim against Primark, which again there is not a single coroborating witness. Even from the supposed victim of this racism. Not a peep out from them, when generally when such events happen, people come forward in droves andc contact the media and yet not a single one has

To further my point

The second link I posted for a local media outlet. Posted the story at 13:30pm today. At 15:39, they updated the story, with the replies from the Primark spokeswoman. The story has had at the bottom from the start a contact.

Did you witness the alleged incident? Call 020 8477 3802 or email alex.shaw@archant.co.uk.

In all those hours and based on the fact this is now a national media story. Does Quill not think it odd, that not a single person has contacted this media with evidence backing up the claim?

How not even one staff member has come forward and can do anonymously?

Didge wrote:Its certainly a claim against Primark, which again there is not a single coroborating witness. Even from the supposed victim of this racism. Not a peep out from them, when generally when such events happen, people come forward in droves andc contact the media and yet not a single one has.

It certainly is a claim, but not a legal claim…not criminal; not civil. Right now it presents a PR mess for Primark.

There is no "supposed victim of this racism" as the slur was toward a class of people: The customer said, "...don't want to be served by black people." At best, a black sales employee might bring a class action (if they have such in GB), but he or she would have to show damages personally, and for the class. To show damages, the plaintiff would have to show, perhaps, loss of jobs, or loss of wages as a result of [i]this customer's attitude. Pretty difficult to show cause and effect abstractly, wouldn't you say?

But note, the claim wouldn’t be against Primark unless one could show that the employer acted at the behest of the racist customer. Recognizing that it’s a PR mess only, Primark simply makes it go away by saying there are no witnesses, no evidence.

Didge wrote:In all those hours and based on the fact this is now a national media story. Does Quill not think it odd, that not a single person has contacted this media with evidence backing up the claim?

No.  We covered this, remember:

Didge wrote:The witnesses can come forward to the media

Why have none done so?

OQ wrote:Probably don't care.

Didge wrote:So you are saying that the staff, of which some would have to be black. Based on the claim, by the customer. That a black staff member received racist remarks and that they have not even come forward?

Odd that do you not think

OQ wrote:Because they could lose their jobs.  You're happily employed, got two kids and a good paycheck...who needs the trouble?  Besides, a lot of them might side with the employer, or even be biased themselves.  Why get involved?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:In all those hours and based on the fact this is now a national media story. Does Quill not think it odd, that not a single person has contacted this media with evidence backing up the claim?

No.  We covered this, remember:

Didge wrote:No you did not

OQ wrote:Probably don't care.

Didge wrote:So you are saying that the staff, of which some would have to be black. Based on the claim, by the customer. That a black staff member received racist remarks and that they have not even come forward?

Odd that do you not think

OQ wrote:Because they could lose their jobs.  You're happily employed, got two kids and a good paycheck...who needs the trouble?  Besides, a lot of them might side with the employer, or even be biased themselves.  Why get involved?

So now all employess, which is covered by whistleblowing laws, would render Primark losing a massive case of its entire workforce. Taking them to a tribunal with constructive dismissal. I would think every employee would based on the amount of money they would easily win from Primark. The reality is Quill just like most threads, you introduce bollocks. Companies have to abide by UK laws and if they do not they could run the risk of being closed down and at least heavily fined. So to claim they could lose their jobs, which would by itself, means they could take Primark to the cleaners over. When Primark is not able to sack employees for whistleblowing. Shows you do not understand British law.

Now try again

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Its certainly a claim against Primark, which again there is not a single coroborating witness. Even from the supposed victim of this racism. Not a peep out from them, when generally when such events happen, people come forward in droves andc contact the media and yet not a single one has.

It certainly is a claim, but not a legal claim…not criminal; not civil.  Right now it presents a PR mess for Primark.

There is no "supposed victim of this racism" as the slur was toward a class of people: The customer said, "...don't want to be served by black people."  At best, a black sales employee might bring a class action (if they have such in GB), but he or she would have to show damages personally, and for the class.  To show damages, the plaintiff would have to show, perhaps, loss of jobs, or loss of wages as a result of this customer's attitude.  Pretty difficult to show cause and effect abstractly, wouldn't you say?

But note, the claim wouldn’t be against Primark unless one could show that the employer acted at the behest of the racist customer.  Recognizing that it’s a PR mess only, Primark simply makes it go away by saying there are no witnesses, no evidence.

Sorry, but do you understand laws around racial discrimination in the work place?

eddie wrote:Quill, you could always look at it another way: the employer would like to be seen to act in the right way, it looks good on them.

Hello edds! It seems we find ourselves in one of those threads. You know what I mean.

I would just like to say to you that I read your comments and find them insightful and helpful to the thread here. Tally-ho!

Didge wrote:So now all employess, which is covered by whistleblowing laws, would render Primark losing a massive case of its entire workforce. Taking them to a tribunal with constructive dismissal. I would think every employee would based on the amount of money they would easily win from Primark. The reality is Quill just like most threads, you introduce bollocks. Companies have to abide by UK laws and if they do not they could run the risk of being closed down and at least heavily fined. So to claim they could lose their jobs, which would by itself, means they could take Primark to the cleaners over. When Primark is not able to sack employees for whistleblowing. Shows you do not understand British law.

Now try again

Who is going to whistleblow?  “Constructive dismissal occurs when, instead of firing the employee, the employer makes working conditions so intolerable that the employee is forced to resign [Findlaw Legal Dictionary].”  Why would Primark want to make conditions intolerable for someone who has done them no wrong?

Who is going to sue Primark, and how are they going to pay for the legal fees and costs?  Why?  Contingency fees are now allowed in the UK, as of the Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, but it requires a successful recovery.  What UK laws are Primark not abiding by?

Primark, like any other employer, is entitled to terminate an unsatisfactory employee; how could you link a termination back to this incident, which itself is undocumented and not a legal matter?  Primark’s only sin (allegedly) is its silence about an alleged racist comment, by some unknown customer, overheard by some untraceable, underaged witness, which doesn’t leave a lot of evidence.  Indeed, even there, Primark seems to have covered itself by advertising that if anyone has information about the incident, they should come forward and contact them: "Did you witness the alleged incident? Call 020 8477 3802 or email alex.shaw@archant.co.uk."  Prithee…what did the company do wrong, or not do right, and how are you going to recover for it?

You need to gets your ducks in a row if you're going to play lawyer, didge.  Primark is only guilty of being less than enthusiastic about tracking down a racist customer.  I suspect a jury would be equally less than enthusiastic about awarding damages for such a lightweight matter.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So now all employess, which is covered by whistleblowing laws, would render Primark losing a massive case of its entire workforce. Taking them to a tribunal with constructive dismissal. I would think every employee would based on the amount of money they would easily win from Primark. The reality is Quill just like most threads, you introduce bollocks. Companies have to abide by UK laws and if they do not they could run the risk of being closed down and at least heavily fined. So to claim they could lose their jobs, which would by itself, means they could take Primark to the cleaners over. When Primark is not able to sack employees for whistleblowing. Shows you do not understand British law.

Now try again

Who is going to whistleblow?  “Constructive dismissal occurs when, instead of firing the employee, the employer makes working conditions so intolerable that the employee is forced to resign [Findlaw Legal Dictionary].”  Why would Primark want to make conditions intolerable for someone who has done them no wrong?

Quill yet again failing to understand employment laws, discrimination laws etc.

On top of that, you have still not provided a valid reason, why not a single witness has come forward. Not even the supposed victim of this racism. Not their collegues, not any of the shoppers.  Many of whom are all black. To say, not a single one would come forward. Is you claiming that none of these black people care about racism,  which proves you are talking bollocks and have no understanding of this country. 

In other words the story, completely lacks any credability

I cant see any manager in any shop in GB allowing a customer to talk in such an insulting racist way about a staff member...and then being given priority service as a reward.
Its all a load of tosh imo.

Probably someone who holds a grudge against the shop...like the woman last year who said a Primark security man manhandled her as she was breast feeding her baby....she was a proven liar too.

quill if that had actually happened it would be all over social media by now

yet again you show your determination to find racism where none has actually existed at all

give it up now pet

gelico wrote:Quill yet again failing to understand employment laws, discrimination laws etc.

Good...let's sort it out. What law was broken?

You seem hesitant as to whether it is an employment law, or a discrimination law. They are two separate areas. Or perhaps you see a discrimination in employment law? That's what didge failed to do...identify the law and plug in the facts.

If it was discrimination, it would relate to a protected classification. What classification? If it was a fair employment law, what was the adverse action? Demotion? Termination? A stern lecture?

Otherwise, like Didge, you're just tossing out verbiage--eg, "constructive discharge"-- and hoping we're impressed. I know you want to help your friends, gelico, but law is not a clique on a website. You need to make your words relate to the facts or you will be embarrassed.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:Quill yet again failing to understand employment laws, discrimination laws etc.

Good...let's sort it out.  What law was broken?

You seem hesitant as to whether it is an employment law, or a discrimination law.  They are two separate areas.  Or perhaps you see a discrimination in employment law?  That's what didge failed to do...identify the law and plug in the facts.

If it was discrimination, it would relate to a protected classification.  What classification?  If it was a fair employment law, what was the adverse action?  Demotion?  Termination?  A stern lecture?

Otherwise, like Didge, you're just tossing out verbiage--eg, "constructive discharge"-- and hoping we're impressed.  I know you want to help your friends, gelico, but law is not a clique on a website.  You need  to make your words relate to the facts or you will be embarrassed.

i have no idea why or how you have quoted me above as saying that. I didn't say that, didge did. this is what i wrote,,,


quill if that had actually happened it would be all over social media by now

yet again you show your determination to find racism where none has actually existed at all

give it up now pet

gelico wrote:On top of that, you have still not provided a valid reason, why not a single witness has come forward. Not even the supposed victim of this racism. Not their collegues, not any of the shoppers. Many of whom are all black. To say, not a single one would come forward. Is you claiming that none of these black people care about racism, which proves you are talking bollocks and have no understanding of this country.

I've never met them. Do they exist? If they exist, maybe they are not interested in getting involved. It seems to me you and didge are the ones making charges. The two of you should at least identify the victims. Who are they?

gelico wrote:In other words the story, completely lacks any credability

That's my feeling. It's all only a PR debacle for Primark. As I've said above, there is no law implicated, nor a victim.

gelico wrote:i have no idea why or how you have quoted me above as saying that. I didn't say that, didge did. this is what i wrote,,,

Do you deny your own post now? Or just disavow it? Here is the full quote to refresh your memory:

gelico wrote:Quill yet again failing to understand employment laws, discrimination laws etc.

On top of that, you have still not provided a valid reason, why not a single witness has come forward. Not even the supposed victim of this racism. Not their collegues, not any of the shoppers. Many of whom are all black. To say, not a single one would come forward. Is you claiming that none of these black people care about racism, which proves you are talking bollocks and have no understanding of this country.

In other words the story, completely lacks any credability

Do you remember now? That's the post I was responding to. Methinks you are trying to pull a 'bait and switch' on us.

gelico wrote:quill if that had actually happened it would be all over social media by now

It is all over social media. Look at you, writing about it on social media.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:i have no idea why or how you have quoted me above as saying that. I didn't say that, didge did. this is what i wrote,,,

Do you deny your own post now?  Or just disavow it?  Here is the full quote to refresh your memory:

gelico wrote:Quill yet again failing to understand employment laws, discrimination laws etc.

On top of that, you have still not provided a valid reason, why not a single witness has come forward. Not even the supposed victim of this racism. Not their collegues, not any of the shoppers.  Many of whom are all black. To say, not a single one would come forward. Is you claiming that none of these black people care about racism,  which proves you are talking bollocks and have no understanding of this country.

In other words the story, completely lacks any credability

Do you remember now?  That's the post I was responding to.  Methinks you are trying to pull a 'bait and switch' on us.

that wasn't my post. it was didge. check back

I am still waiting for Quill to explain, that why a day later, not a single person has come forward.

Eiether he is suggesting lots of the customers and staff dont care about racism, where we know some were black. or is it that the event never even happened and why nobody has come forward.

I mean there is some funny conspiracy bullshit that Quill has promoting claiming that now all staff have been silenced to come forward.

One monent

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So now all employess, which is covered by whistleblowing laws, would render Primark losing a massive case of its entire workforce. Taking them to a tribunal with constructive dismissal. I would think every employee would based on the amount of money they would easily win from Primark. The reality is Quill just like most threads, you introduce bollocks. Companies have to abide by UK laws and if they do not they could run the risk of being closed down and at least heavily fined. So to claim they could lose their jobs, which would by itself, means they could take Primark to the cleaners over. When Primark is not able to sack employees for whistleblowing. Shows you do not understand British law.

Now try again

Who is going to whistleblow?  “Constructive dismissal occurs when, instead of firing the employee, the employer makes working conditions so intolerable that the employee is forced to resign [Findlaw Legal Dictionary].”  Why would Primark want to make conditions intolerable for someone who has done them no wrong?

Quill yet again failing to understand employment laws, discrimination laws etc.

On top of that, you have still not provided a valid reason, why not a single witness has come forward. Not even the supposed victim of this racism. Not their collegues, not any of the shoppers.  Many of whom are all black. To say, not a single one would come forward. Is you claiming that none of these black people care about racism,  which proves you are talking bollocks and have no understanding of this country. 

In other words the story, completely lacks any credability

This post was made by Didge, not Gelico.

Syl wrote:Sounds like someone telling tale tales to me.

For a start, most of the staff at any Primark store you care to go in will be none white.
I imagine ALL of the staff who work in their sweat shops both here and abroad are also none  white too.

Really? I can't say I've noticed what colour the staff are in my nearest Primark. Why would most of them be non white?

There is no "claim" against Primark, other than that a manager turned a blind eye to alleged racism on the part of a customer. That would hardly be a sackable offence. I also don't see why other employees would not speak up about it - they would be accusing an employee, not Primark itself. In other words, there's no evidence that it happened.

Didge wrote:I am still waiting for Quill to explain, that why a day later, not a single person has come forward.

Who cares? It was inconsequential. I'm not even sure it happened.

No laws were broken. It's just gossip...and a bad PR issue for Primark.

Raggamuffin wrote:There is no "claim" against Primark, other than that a manager turned a blind eye to alleged racism on the part of a customer. That would hardly be a sackable offence. I also don't see why other employees would not speak up about it - they would be accusing an employee, not Primark itself. In other words, there's no evidence that it happened.

Exactly.

It's even more remote, in that it wouldn't be "accusing an employee", but a customer...one only overheard by a questionable, hearsay witness.

Daily Mail wrote:In a Facebook post, Do Na Marie from London outlined the alleged incident she said her daughter had witnessed at Primark's Westfield Stratord City store in East London.

Her daughter claimed she had heard a customer tell a 'Muslim female' member of staff: 'I don't want to be served by black people'.

Frankly, there's real grounds for questioning whether it ever happened.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I am still waiting for Quill to explain, that why a day later, not a single person has come forward.

Who cares?  It was inconsequential.  I'm not even sure it happened.

No laws were broken.  It's just gossip...and a bad PR issue for Primark.

Because the reasons you provided all looked to defended the claimants, when there is not a single corroborating witness. It means you automatically backed a claim, based off hearsay. You also did so also based off no evidence, but assumptions.

That is evident, by the poor excuses you continually gave.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Sounds like someone telling tall tales to me.

For a start, most of the staff at any Primark store you care to go in will be none white.
I imagine ALL of the staff who work in their sweat shops both here and abroad are also none  white too.

Really? I can't say I've noticed what colour the staff are in my nearest Primark. Why would most of them be non white?

You would have to ask the recruiting teams that question not me.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Who cares?  It was inconsequential.  I'm not even sure it happened.

No laws were broken.  It's just gossip...and a bad PR issue for Primark.

Because the reasons you provided all looked to defended the claimants, when there is not a single corroborating witness. It means you automatically backed a claim, based off hearsay. You also did so also based off no evidence, but assumptions.

That is evident, by the poor excuses you continually gave.

What claimants?  I don't think any claim has been made.  Read the OP, didge.  It's about a post of a story, based upon hearsay of a relative: someone overheard her daughter, who overheard a conversation in which a customer might have said she didn't like non-white salesclerks.  The basis in fact is hearsay, within hearsay, within hearsay.

Now as to the law: what would be the claim? Talk of a claim is even illogical, as who would a claim be against?  The store is not responsible.  In addition, who would make the claim?  Who was injured?  What losses?  Finally, what would be the nature of a claim; is it against the law for a customer to say she doesn't like black salesclerks?  Based upon what law, and before what agency or court?  What is the jurisdiction?

Didge, you haven't read the original article, and you have no idea what you are talking about.  Yet you are attributing all sorts of non-stories to me.  Either you are a hayseed who can't think at all, or you are very jealous and anxious to put words in my mouth that were never spoken.

Very typical...sloppy work, mate.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Because the reasons you provided all looked to defended the claimants, when there is not a single corroborating witness. It means you automatically backed a claim, based off hearsay. You also did so also based off no evidence, but assumptions.

That is evident, by the poor excuses you continually gave.

What claimants?  I don't think any claim has been made.  Read the OP, didge.  It's about a post of a story, based upon hearsay of a relative: someone overheard her daughter, who overheard a conversation in which a customer might have said she didn't like non-white salesclerks.  The basis in fact is hearsay, within hearsay, within hearsay.

Now as to the law: what would be the claim?  Talk of a claim is even illogical, as who would a claim be against?  The store is not responsible.  In addition, who would make the claim?  Who was injured?  What losses?  Finally, what would be the nature of a claim; is it against the law for a customer to say she doesn't like black salesclerks?  Based upon what law, and before what agency or court?  What is the jurisdiction?

Didge, you haven't read the original article, and you have no idea what you are talking about.  Yet you are attributing all sorts of non-stories to me.  Either you are a hayseed who can't think at all, or you are very jealous and anxious to put words in my mouth that were never spoken.

Very typical...sloppy work, mate.

Shall I point out the obvious?......

Syl wrote:Shall I point out the obvious?

Nah...he's just going through a wannabe lawyer phase.  

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Shall I point out the obvious?

Nah...he's just going through a wannabe lawyer phase.  

I didn't actually mean that Quill.
I meant that you twice in this thread accused Gels of posting something she did not....read back.