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

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.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

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.