John Lewis Boss Calls For Abusing Shop Workers To Be An Offence

[HeHasRisen]

5 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

harping on with your ridiculous assertion

Are you saying the HSBC business banking terms on that PDF are wrong?

 

Some accusation.

 

It clearly states debit card payments are free. Not an introductory offer either. You cant spin it any other way but bless you, you tried.

Edited August 31, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[hackey lad]

6 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

The thread is called    -     John Lewis Boss Calls For Abusing Shop Workers To Be An Offence

 

You sound like an idiot who never has a comment about the subject of the thread but just comes on to be offensive.

When are you going to debate something apart from what someone sounds like?

Probably full of ale again I suppose.

I have commented on this subject .

[Irene Swaine]

You two need to get yourselves a room in the Easyhotel. 🤭

[Chekhov]

On 30/08/2023 at 13:46, Chekhov said:

I was having a chat with my mate about modern attitudes and sensitivities, which is basically what this thread is about, and he mentioned "micro aggressions". These, he said, are not actually aggressive, and certainly would not have been considered aggressive 20 years ago, but now it's different......

The problems arise if if someone uses so called "micro aggressions" with someone over sensitive, of whom there are very many these days : upset results. Worse still, these days "upset" is taken very seriously (far too seriously....), so someone who has not really done anything at all, certainly nothing significant, could end up finding themselves in real bother. Not so much from the police who would hopefully ignore such trivialities, but with organisations, particularly public sector organisations or "paternalistic companies" who vaunt "how much we care about our staff" (as opposed to their customers.....).

 

My mate is right, and what Sharon White [the chairman of John Lewis] said (in the opener) proves it.

 

Compare this cotton wool cobblers to what happened to me back in 1985 !

I was thinking about this post when I was in Boots the other days and saw the notice (below).

I have seen these notices for years and never thought much about them, I just focussed in the "Zero tolerance" to violence or threats and thought well that goes without saying.

But my mate's tale of "micro aggressions" has caused me to rethink.

Who gets to define "abuse" ?

Or "verbal violence" (which by definition does not even exist) ?

Or even "harassment" ?

All you need is some over sensitive employee with a weak virtue signalling manager (particularly at a public sector organisation where the customer is most definitely not "always right") and someone who has done pretty much sod all could find themselves on a blacklist.

"We have zero tolerance to violence or threats", yes I can go with that.

But all the rest of it ? 

No.

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Chekhov

[Prettytom]

On 31/08/2023 at 15:52, Organgrinder said:

Chekhov's well known for lying. 

Another poster confirmed that,        As a result,  I no longer converse with him.

He’s getting quite a reputation for that.

 

In amongst the grindingly dull, repetitive posts, he also twists words and makes up fake 

opinions for other people.

[Irene Swaine]

5 hours ago, Chekhov said:

I was thinking about this post when I was in Boots the other days and saw the notice (below).

I have seen these notices for years and never thought much about them, I just focussed in the "Zero tolerance" to violence or threats and thought well that goes without saying.

But my mate's tale of "micro aggressions" has caused me to rethink.

Who gets to define "abuse" ?

Or "verbal violence" (which by definition does not even exist) ?

Or even "harassment" ?

All you need is some over sensitive employee with a weak virtue signalling manager (particularly at a public sector organisation where the customer is most definitely not "always right") and someone who has done pretty much sod all could find themselves on a blacklist.

"We have zero tolerance to violence or threats", yes I can go with that.

But all the rest of it ? 

No.

 

"Verbal violence" 🤣🤣🤣 What a joke. I find the staff in Boot's to be rude and the signs asking people to pay with card are a big no-no for me. Superdrug is much better. As for the last sentence, I have the right to refuse them my custom, which I now do. The customer has the final say. 

[HeHasRisen]

5 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

and the signs asking people to pay with card are a big no-no for me

You know the staff in the shop dont decide on that policy, dont you?

[Irene Swaine]

1 minute ago, HeHasRisen said:

You know the staff in the shop dont decide on that policy, dont you?

It's another reason not to shop with Boot's. 

[HeHasRisen]

Boot's what?

[Chekhov]

4 hours ago, Prettytom said:

He’s getting quite a reputation for that.

In amongst the grindingly dull, repetitive posts, he also twists words and makes up fake 

opinions for other people.

Talk is cheap, example please.