Wilko Collapses Into Administration

[Chekhov]

On 28/11/2023 at 23:54, Prettytom said:

On the upside, we are a very tolerant nation.

We even tolerate hateful, racist, divisive citizens.
The sort of people who resent looking after the ill and the infirm, still get tolerated here.

Lucky for you, eh.

You are wrong, very wrong.

In some ways Britain is becoming less and less tolerant. Many people who regard themselves as tolerant and inclusive etc are only so for people who think like they do.

Those infamous signs "we have zero tolerance of abuse" are a good case in point, because, of course, "abuse" is totally subjective, so who gets to define it ? One or two  seriously suggested that the "victim" should be the one to define it, even if they happen to be of a rather "over sensitive disposition"..... Thus we are in a race to the bottom, so to speak, as to what is acceptable behaviour these days. More and more stuff is considered unacceptable or even banned altogether, and it is driven by what the most sensitive person would find upsetting. And I think this trend will continue, getting more and more extreme as it snowballs.

 

So, JC really was right : "the meek shall inherit the earth".

[Baron99]

I saw BBC's Breakfast News this morning & a Wilko in Plymouth city centre was having a grand re-opening this morning with all the previous staff retained. 

[Mister M]

50 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

You are wrong, very wrong.

In some ways Britain is becoming less and less tolerant. Many people who regard themselves as tolerant and inclusive etc are only so for people who think like they do.

Those infamous signs "we have zero tolerance of abuse" are a good case in point, because, of course, "abuse" is totally subjective, so who gets to define it ? One or two  seriously suggested that the "victim" should be the one to define it, even if they happen to be of a rather "over sensitive disposition"..... Thus we are in a race to the bottom, so to speak, as to what is acceptable behaviour these days. More and more stuff is considered unacceptable or even banned altogether, and it is driven by what the most sensitive person would find upsetting. And I think this trend will continue, getting more and more extreme as it snowballs.

 

So, JC really was right : "the meek shall inherit the earth".

In some cases the law gets to define it if the criminal justice system gets involved.

In other cases where a shop worker is being abusive to a customer or vice versa then then shop manager or head office will determine after they've established what's happened.

In my dealings with people I treat others the way I would like to be treated, and have never been accused of abusing someone when I'm a customer in a shop, on public transport, or I'm a patient or service user in a medical setting, or down at the Council. 

I think it's sad that organisations feel the need to have these signs up. However I'm in no doubt that a small minority of people do behave is a disgusting manner towards staff and think that's alright. No it isn't alright. How would they feel if they were on the receiving end of a barrage of abuse?

Yes it is hard to define, but when you've been subject to it, you know exactly what it is, and how it's left you feeling. And the people who have been on the receiving end shouldn't be made to feel worse by someone telling them that they're "over sensitive". That's just rubbing salt into the wound.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Mister M

[Guest]

On 28/11/2023 at 23:44, Jack Grey said:

You didn't explain anything to me

 

You just gave your opinion which I disagree with

 

We are a high tax, high spend, socialist country 

 

£500bn spent on COVID

 

£200bn a year on the NHS

 

Millions sat at home on benefits

 

Millions more on the sick

 

It's a country that takes money from the middle classes and gives it to the lazy and thick 

If your bottom line's correct,  that money should be on it's way to you then so why worry ?

 

[hackey lad]

3 hours ago, Baron99 said:

I saw BBC's Breakfast News this morning & a Wilko in Plymouth city centre was having a grand re-opening this morning with all the previous staff retained. 

I saw that and the new owner said that if they were to re open the closed shops , the owners of the shops would have to agree to cheaper rent an rates .  That puts a spoke in Crystal Peaks one re opening then . 

[Chekhov]

18 hours ago, Mister M said:

In some cases the law gets to define it if the criminal justice system gets involved.

In other cases where a shop worker is being abusive to a customer or vice versa then then shop manager or head office will determine after they've established what's happened.

In my dealings with people I treat others the way I would like to be treated, and have never been accused of abusing someone when I'm a customer in a shop, on public transport, or I'm a patient or service user in a medical setting, or down at the Council. 

I think it's sad that organisations feel the need to have these signs up. However I'm in no doubt that a small minority of people do behave is a disgusting manner towards staff and think that's alright. No it isn't alright. How would they feel if they were on the receiving end of a barrage of abuse?

Yes it is hard to define, but when you've been subject to it, you know exactly what it is, and how it's left you feeling. And the people who have been on the receiving end shouldn't be made to feel worse by someone telling them that they're "over sensitive". That's just rubbing salt into the wound.

I have worked in retail for about 40 years.

I can count on the fingers of one hand (one hand with some of the fingers cut off actually) the number of times I have had a customer be  what I would consider unacceptably "abusive" to me.

I asked my staff this same question and they could not remember the last time it happened either, i.e. for reasonably well adjusted people it is a non problem.

But for over sensitive types it apparently is a problem.

The obvious question is why should over sensitive types get to decide how everyone acts, even what type of personality is acceptable in the crap modern world of ours where anyone getting upset is the ultimate disaster.

They should man up or go and move to a job where they don't interact with the general public.

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Chekhov

[Mister M]

20 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I have worked in retail for about 40 years.

I can count on the fingers of one hand (one hand with some of the fingers cut off actually) the number of times I have had a customer be  what I would consider unacceptably "abusive" to me.

But then you and your shop isn't the whole of the UK. In schools, hospitals, and retail, unfortunately there has been an increase in abusiveness and violence directed towards the people that staff them. That's not an opinion, it's happening.

20 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I asked my staff this same question and they could not remember the last time it happened either, i.e. for reasonably well adjusted people it is a non problem.

But for over sensitive types it apparently is a problem.

The obvious question is why should over sensitive types get to decide how everyone acts, even what type of personality is acceptable in the crap modern world of ours where anyone getting upset is the ultimate disaster.

They don't. Unless over sensitive types populate management of shops, services and institutions of the legal establishment

 

[Chekhov]

4 hours ago, Mister M said:

But then you and your shop isn't the whole of the UK. In schools, hospitals, and retail, unfortunately there has been an increase in abusiveness and violence directed towards the people that staff them. That's not an opinion, it's happening

I never said anything about violence. That's completely different and against the law, and rightly so.

 

"Abuse" is different, it is subjective and in any case is never going to hurt anyone. As a problem it is exaggerated in this pathetic over sensitive world of ours.

 

4 hours ago, Mister M said:

They don't. Unless over sensitive types populate management of shops, services and institutions of the legal establishment

I know for a fact some of the people working with the public are over sensitive for that job, in which case they should get another job, rather than forcing society to fit in with them.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Chekhov

[Mister M]

38 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I never said anything about violence. That's completely different and against the law, and rightly so.

 

"Abuse" is different, it is subjective and in any case is never going to hurt anyone. As a problem it is exaggerated in this pathetic over sensitive world of ours.

The law disagrees with you - Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022

Quote

 

I know for a fact some of the people working with the public are over sensitive for that job, in which case they should get another job, rather than forcing society to fit in with them.

No - people shouldn't go to work fearing for their safety and wellbeing. If a small minority of idiots can't behave themselves then they're the ones who should moderate their behaviour, not the other way round.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Mister M

[ECCOnoob]

7 hours ago, Chekhov said:

I never said anything about violence. That's completely different and against the law, and rightly so.

 

"Abuse" is different, it is subjective and in any case is never going to hurt anyone. As a problem it is exaggerated in this pathetic over sensitive world of ours.

 

I know for a fact some of the people working with the public are over sensitive for that job, in which case they should get another job, rather than forcing society to fit in with them.

You will have no problem citing the sources of your 'facts' then......