Racists can’t buy petrol

[manxman1980]

4 minutes ago, Idleweiss said:

An employer could still well end up in a tribunal by taking one employees word over another if someone has been disciplined for something allegedly said but not witnessed by a third party. They have said in the article they have given the police the CCTV so surely it’s over to them to decide if a crime has been committed rather than a EVF trial by social media? 

Yes, but the employer would still only have to show that they had a reasonable belief that the employee had acted inappropriately.  

I am not sure why you feel this is so outrageous. 

I can't say I have see a trial by social media about this.  The only one getting agitated by it seems to be you everyone else has just calmly tried to explain why there isn't an issue here apart from someone being racist.

[StrangeBrew]

14 minutes ago, Idleweiss said:

An employer could still well end up in a tribunal by taking one employees word over another if someone has been disciplined for something allegedly said but not witnessed by a third party. They have said in the article they have given the police the CCTV so surely it’s over to them to decide if a crime has been committed rather than a EVF trial by social media? 

Jeez, this has to be a wind up?

It’s possible for two things to be true at the same time. 

1. Yes, it’s up to the police to determine if a crime’s been committed 

2. It’s up to EVF if they want to support their staff member and ban this individual from their premises. They don’t need incontrovertible proof that a crime has been committed to do that - they can make that decision.

[StrangeBrew]

19 minutes ago, Idleweiss said:

 

Edited July 29 by StrangeBrew
Duplicate. FFS

[StrangeBrew]

18 minutes ago, Idleweiss said:

 

Edited July 29 by StrangeBrew
Duplicate

[Idleweiss]

21 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

I am not sure why you feel this is so outrageous. 

FFS where did I use the word outrageous? I made a one line post. A load of muppets then immediately jumped in to try to blow what was said out of all proportion to amuse themselves and then it continues. I would have thought this was something that would have been content on Tweetbeat not a news story on 3fm about something that ultimately may or may not have happened as it’s currently unproven.

[Anyone]

I was not aware being a racist was a criminal offense in itself. 

[alpha-acid]

1 minute ago, Anyone said:

I was not aware being a racist was a criminal offense in itself. 

It isn't but if you comment on other people it is

[HeliX]

39 minutes ago, Idleweiss said:

FFS where did I use the word outrageous? I made a one line post. A load of muppets then immediately jumped in to try to blow what was said out of all proportion to amuse themselves and then it continues. I would have thought this was something that would have been content on Tweetbeat not a news story on 3fm about something that ultimately may or may not have happened as it’s currently unproven.

You're the one who keeps claiming it's a "trial by social media". It quite obviously isn't. It's a business showing that they are willing to ban people who are abusive.

[Anyone]

9 minutes ago, alpha-acid said:

It isn't but if you comment on other people it is

It’s a fine line though. Scouse git , is that racist? Jock bastard. Thick Taffy. I know none of them are and it’s down to skin colour but we don’t know what was said and in what context. 

[Idleweiss]

38 minutes ago, HeliX said:

You're the one who keeps claiming it's a "trial by social media". 

I think you will find that I said that once. More hyperbole about nothing.

[Harry Lamb]

8 hours ago, Anyone said:

It’s a fine line though. Scouse git , is that racist? Jock bastard. Thick Taffy. I know none of them are and it’s down to skin colour but we don’t know what was said and in what context. 

Boring twat?

[Jarndyce]

15 hours ago, Idleweiss said:

 

A very strange “news” item indeed

 

You guys - you take the bait every time. Now four pages and counting!

[Fred the shred]

I thought every business owner had the right to ban a person from their premises without a reason just as householders can refuse access to their property without a reason.    

[Declan]

2 hours ago, Fred the shred said:

I thought every business owner had the right to ban a person from their premises without a reason just as householders can refuse access to their property without a reason.    

Generally but I guess there has to be fairness in the decision making process e.g. you can’t refuse to sell someone a cake because they’re gay but you can if it supports a cause you disagree with.
 

You can deny Nigel Farage premium banking facilities because he does have enough funds for your service you can’t because of his politics. 

So you can decide who you do business with, but only if you follow a non-discriminatory process. 

[The Phantom]

5 minutes ago, Declan said:

Generally but I guess there has to be fairness in the decision making process e.g. you can’t refuse to sell someone a cake because they’re gay but you can if it supports a cause you disagree with.
 

You can deny Nigel Farage premium banking facilities because he does have enough funds for your service you can’t because of his politics. 

So you can decide who you do business with, but only if you follow a non-discriminatory process. 

 

2 hours ago, Fred the shred said:

I thought every business owner had the right to ban a person from their premises without a reason just as householders can refuse access to their property without a reason.    

I once banned a girl from a place I am a Director at for stalking/psychotic behaviour towards a staff member.  I'm surprised she didn't escalate it to be honest, lucky for all involved really.