Oh give over. There’s nothing responsible about taking it upon yourself to dictate your employers policies. Unless your company have told you not to serve someone, you serve them.

There’s also nothing responsible about giving Tommy Robinson the moral high ground, who now gets to walk away talking about how he’s being persecuted.

There are so many straws being clutched at in this article it’s ridiculous.

I agree with John, the OP is entirely wrong.

What the shop assistant did was discriminatory, and that’s that. He has also provided Robinson with another axe to grind.

There’s also nothing responsible about giving Tommy Robinson the moral high ground, who now gets to walk away talking about how he’s being persecuted.

Rubbish – he’s a violent thug and has convictions for it too. Perfectly consistent not to want to serve.
A company is under no obligation to serve such people.

Sorry, but this article is a load of rubbish. Two issues:

(1) You state the following “We were allowed to refuse customers who were drunk, violent, or if we obviously believed they were underage or supplying underage people.”

Yes, but in each of those cases you are permitted to refuse service on the basis of a breaking of the law. In this instance you are refusing service to someone based on a judgement you pass which is guilty by association.

(2) As a shop assistant, so long as the customer is not breaking the law, you should serve him. Would I expect service to be given to a hardline socialist even if his ideological and political beliefs had led to the deaths of millions? of course I would. He is a customer like any other.

“This week sees the launch of a new documentary, Nae Pasaran, recognising how 40 years ago shop floor workers at an aircraft engine repair factory in East Kilbride refused to work on plane engines of fascist dictator General Pinochet, after he seized power in a coup. ”

Is this repair factory still in business?

I see Tommy Derangement Syndrome still grips the Lib Con mind.

Rubbish – he’s a violent thug and has convictions for it too. Perfectly consistent not to want to serve.
—

So every person with a criminal record should be banned from shopping?

The shop assistant who reportedly refused to help Robinson’s friend, saying “f**k off, I am not serving you”

This is the kind of thing the left respect and think is responsible, being so intolerable of opposing views you want to banish them from society, and then make insane comparisons to what actually happened?

If a shop owner had read about female circumcision in the news paper for instance and addressed anyone who he suspected of following a religion that in some way promoted it in the same manner, can you imagine the melt down that would take place on these pages..

The EDL & Mr Yaxley-Lennon (not “Tommy Robinson”) are banned from many pubs and clubs. With the agreement of the police. Why Selfridges thought it necessary to treat him & his friend to an all-expenses paid slap-up meal is beyond me. They should have made their employee “employee of the month” for showing initiative. As it is they look incredibly stupid. As do the EDL apologists above.

As do the EDL apologists above.
—-

Im an apologists for basically pointing out banning a person from a service every one is entitled to when they have committed no offense on the premises, in effect banning them for who they are and the thoughts in their heads, is wrong?

As wrong as it would be to give the same treatment to any member of the public due to their religion despite perfectly reasonable behavior whilst on the premises?

Difference between my views and yours is, im freedom for all within the bounds of our law system, you selectively choose who you think should be free to, well even go to a shop in our society based on their views, you’re a fascist and its extremely apparent to any one who is not.

@9

No-one has said Mr Yaxley-Lennon can’t go to Selfridges. The only issue is that was this particular shop worker right in refusing a racist criminal service.

Mr Yaxley-Lennon is free to shop at Selfridges, they have not banned him from their premises after all (unlike pubs and clubs, and I wonder why that might be? Funny how no-one disputes those bans).

If the leader of an organisation who’s only reason for existence is to whip up hate against your community came into your shop, would you be comfortable serving him? I doubt it. But your comfortable white middle class privilege means you will never, ever, be in the position that this shop worker was put in.

Sunny: “A company is under no obligation to serve such people”.

This is the point: it is under such an obligation. It is unlawful not to serve in such a circumstance. I thought this was common knowledge.

Of course, the law was intended to protect minorities and not the likes of Robinson, however that’s irrelevant.

You don’t need to be an “EDL Apologist” to point this out.

This is bullshit. If hoteliers cannot refuse gay couples then shops cannot refuse nazis who are behaving acceptably.

If they misbehave, though…

When I heard this I thought Robinson must have been mouthing off or causing a problem but it appears he was behaving perfectly reasonably. As has already been said, why give him the moral high ground? The shop assistant just looks like a prat and they probably are.

The problem with this type of behaviour (the shop assistant’s) is it might go down well with smug bien pensant Owen Jones brigade but that’s not how others see it. Robinson was on a BBC program called Free Speech with some minor celebrities who kept whipping up the politically correct audience by shouting insults like “racist” and “bigot” (there’s a good take on it here. That may well be true but he wasn’t saying racist things at the time and the result was it made him look like the victim.

No-one has said Mr Yaxley-Lennon can’t go to Selfridges. The only issue is that was this particular shop worker right in refusing a racist criminal service.
—

He had a right to walk away and let someone else tend to him, he had no right to say fuck off I am not serving you. You are employed to do a job not make political points.

How far does this go, exactly? An ambulance crew turn up to the scene of an accident and refuse medical aid to a dying patient because they have the right, on the count of that persons beliefs not to address the situation??? If this guy has the right to do this, again on the count of beliefs, do people have the right to ban or refuse service to Muslims? Do hotel owners have the right to ban gays?

I understand that you leftists, with your emotional immaturity, are over run and the light of logic is pushed aside to meet your emotional needs quite often, but really this is a rabbit hole that is best not opened.

We are all liable to deal with people we are not comfortable being around when we enter a working environment especially if that job deals directly with the public, again its not the place to make political points, we are paid to leave our selves at the door and provide a service.

But your comfortable white middle class privilege means you will never, ever, be in the position that this shop worker was put in.
—

What? This guy is not “privileged” because he is working a job you look down on for a living and his skin is not white? You insulting twat! Take you’re racist snobbery else where, making judgements about people based on occupation and skin color is disgusting. As for my own long line of work I have done everything from tescos to the on foot in the sewage system, you may look down upon people who do those kind of things as unprivileged bottom of the ladder types but not all of us need to constantly define our selves externally, we just get on with it.

@14

“What? This guy is not “privileged” because he is working a job you look down on for a living and his skin is not white? You insulting twat! Take you’re racist snobbery else where, making judgements about people based on occupation and skin color is disgusting. As for my own long line of work I have done everything from tescos to the on foot in the sewage system, you may look down upon people who do those kind of things as unprivileged bottom of the ladder types but not all of us need to constantly define our selves externally, we just get on with it.”

Oh, fuck off. Go and learn what “privilege” means, in the context I wrote it, & stop being a sanctimonious prick.

Toodles.

This is bullshit. If hoteliers cannot refuse gay couples then shops cannot refuse nazis who are behaving acceptably.
—

Even better, sunny feels it was right to refuse him because he has convictions for violence, you know that time he knocked a guy out because the guy was a nazi…

Go and learn what “privilege” means, in the context I wrote it
—

Maybe you’re should learn what it means before the next time you throw it about backed by nothing more than assumptions.

Ah, it’s the ‘no idea about apostrophes and bungled grammar’ bozo who’s posting from the circle jerk collective at the moment.

18. Greta ~ Hurt your global warming cult so badly you actually have to follow me around the site and moan about grammar now?

Try to keep with the subject and not display how dented you are.

The tactic of creating scenes at retail outlets in order to gain some form of pay off is nothing new.

The collective circle jerk on the edl supporter thread of Sept 16 ‘Is it a conspiracy theory that over a trillion has been spent to “combat” global warming? #30. 2:24pm Sept 18

The tactic of creating scenes at retail outlets in order to gain some form of pay off is nothing new.
—

What kind of pay do you think the sales guy thought he could get out of it:S

21. Greta ~ Correct yes they claimed I was a conspiracy theorist for pointing out the astonishing amount spent to combat climate change then fell silent when asked to prove the claim wrong, at least it was concerning an issue, you’re comments are just insults because “you dont like me” grow up.

I agree with John, Jack, Matthew Blott etc. This was perhaps understandable, but also counterproductive.

TR political views, or those of his friend or associate are wholly irrelevant here. It is downright disgusting to think that any member of the public would be subjected to such treatment particularly by an employee whose job it is to deal with them in a professional and without prejudice manner.

More importantly, it is actually unlawful to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of their political views.

One would expect better from a store like Selfridges.

22.
You demand that others stick to the subject but your circle jerk doesn’t.

Sarah AB
Based on the turd’s track record, I wouldn’t trust his version of events.

Nonsense. This is nothing to do with social responsibility. No law had been broken. Shop assistants don’t get to choose who they serve and, yes, I was one for 4 years.

@ 3 The fact that he has convictions is irrelevant, so do lots of people. If Selfridges have a “no one with convictions will be served” policy (which I’d like to see them get past the ECHR) it should be applied to everyone with a conviction.

@10 Whether the assistant feels comfortable or not is an irrelevant subjective judgement. His job is to serve whoever is willing to buy something. If he really felt uncomfortable he should have got someone else to serve not told a customer to “f off”. By your argument a christian B&B owner could defend refusing to accommodate a gay couple on those grounds (just a random example, there are many more, pick your oppressor/minority of choice).

Derek Hattons Tailor

he should have got someone else to serve not told a customer to “f off”.

Please indicate why you state that the assistant said that? Were you there? Were you one of the witnesses?

So how far shall we take this policy? Should restaurants refuse him food? Shall Tescos refuse to sell him any groceries at all? Should the Water and Electricity companies cut him off?

Should he be left to die of hunger, cold and thirst because he dared to articulate a political opinion LC does not like?

Compassion – it is for little people innit?

@29 Its on the video which was on C4 news and now on you tube

Perhaps Tommy Robinson should be made to wear a little yellow star to help indicate his unworthiness to be treated like any other human being?

It’s a slippery slope and I’m surprised that anyone here has fallen for the warm comfort of discrimination. It shows how easy it is to be swept along the current of what is deemed acceptable.

I suggest the guy who refused to serve T Robinson’s friend be reassigned to cleaning out the loos for a fortnight to help remind him what doing unpleasant work really is – but suspect he’d only clean the ones used by people whose views he agreed with.

So, we have two messages from “Liberal”Conspiracy:

1) Everyone should have the right to discriminate as they see fit, and,
2) Those with past convictions are beyond redemption.

Oh dear. Surely the best way to tackle the TR’s of this world is not to take them seriously, and blow raspberries at them.

PG Wodehouse is, of course, the benchmark. Here is Bertie Wooster on Roderick Spode, who was based on Mosley:

“The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you’re someone. You hear them shouting “Heil, Spode!” and you imagine it is the Voice of the People. That is where you make your bloomer. What the Voice of the People is saying is: “Look at that frightful ass Spode swanking about in footer bags! Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?”

31.
The only person to say ‘Fuck off’ on the video is the turd holding the phone cam.

Surely Tommy can find a shop that is happy to take his shekels? Why go into one that operates a policy of respect for diversity and ethnicity amongst its employees. If you wouldn’t be able to get a job there because of your inability to respect your fellow humans then you should not be able to shop there either. Hypocrisy otherwise. Should not the EDL chief, now that the worker has been reinstated, should on principle pay for his meal and demand his followers boycott Selfridges.

Surely Tommy can find a shop that is happy to take his shekels? Why go into one that operates a policy of respect for diversity and ethnicity amongst its employees.
—

Perhaps because he has no issue dealing with employees of any ethnicity?

If you wouldn’t be able to get a job there because of your inability to respect your fellow humans then you should not be able to shop there either.
—

Says who? If an employes behavior is in accordance with company policy they keep their job without issue, likewise if a customers behavior whilst on the premises is orderly they have the right to conduct their business.

Should not the EDL chief, now that the worker has been reinstated, should on principle pay for his meal and demand his followers boycott Selfridges.
—

It appears he did not want the worker to lose his job, why when reality is in line with his wishes would he then do that?

Most of you would flow into the working wheels of a police state so easily, you’re sense of right and wrong is horrendous.

9 well said, those who disagreed with the editorial, have all criticised the EDL, so hey re not apologists.

15 what are you on about

16 well said, I note Weyman Bennett, UAF leader has convictions for assault, as does Darcus ho, and a couple of labour M.Ps from the miners strike,

The sun is brred in Liverpool, if I wanted to read it,I don’t by the way, I’d have to go outside of Liverpool, one day I can wee the Guardian being collectively barred by shop owners from stocking it in Essex,for its anti the police, anti semetic attitude,

That will be interesting

`It appears he did not want the worker to lose his job, why when reality is in line with his wishes would he then do that?’

Oh I see, he settled for the free steak.

I have no idea why Selfridges felt it necessary to give them a free meal!

However, is the author of the OP and those of like mind really suggesting that anyone can refuse service to anyone based the opinions they may or may not hold? Or their past behaviour of which they may disapprove?
(Assuming that the customer in question is behaving reasonably at the time.)

Ridiculous.

Boo hoo. Tommy Robinson’s supporters have got their knickers in a twist. Oh, the victimhood! I’m playing the world’s smallest violin.

Get over yourselves.

I just wonder how many of you can tell me the number of working class people who own 7 properties and a tanning salon? I’ll tell you. None.

If Robinson was an ordinary shopkeeper (which he isn’t), how many Muslims would be serve in his shop? I’ll tell you. None.

@37

The Guardian’s “anti-Semitic attitude”? That reads like a smear to me. Presumably you’re ignoring the anti-Semitic comments left on Telegraph blogs in your ‘analysis’. Yes? No?

Oh I see, he settled for the free steak.
—

Yes, where as a lefitst such as you’re self if slightly offended by the layout of a shop, perhaps the coloring of the toy section, would protest out side of that shop until they bent to you’re will and changed it, and if offended by an employe you would want their job as well as, if given the chance to, sue…funny that..

Boo hoo. Tommy Robinson’s supporters have got their knickers in a twist. Oh, the victimhood! I’m playing the world’s smallest violin.

Get over yourselves.
—

Was this you’re attitude towards the homosexuals who were turned away from a service? I don’t see any supporters here, but I see a lot of very confused ungrounded people whose values change depending on the situation.

So, it looks like the Circle Jerk are grounded people who never change their values according to the circumstances.

Collective, you seem to have comprehension problems:

The shop assistant refused service because of this thug’s refusal to embrace the diversity, ethnicity and rights of others. He saw the guy as a threat perhaps to him and certainly to his community and work colleagues. We applaud him. Tommy accepts a free steak and is happy with that outcome because he is a deeply principled democrat like yourself.

If a shop refused to serve a Jew or a black person or a homosexual that would be an example of the shop doing what Tommy does and we would oppose that. It is the ability to see a issue from all sides that make somebody intelligent not their ability to get everything all mixed up.

@39 cjcj
“I have no idea why Selfridges felt it necessary to give them a free meal!”

Because the employee violated to store’s customer service policy (hence his suspension) and may potentially have broken the law.

and Sunny’s take on unlawful discrimination –

“Rubbish – he’s a violent thug and has convictions for it too. Perfectly consistent not to want to serve.
A company is under no obligation to serve such people.”

Priceless, cant wait to see this policy rolled out nationwide. There are all sort’s of dubious Lefty organisation’s that use the community centre’s I administer, now all I need is to require a CRB check and I can boot them out!

And just to be clear, there would be no need to ban the EDL as they have no presence in the community that is noticeable. But if they did ever achieve enough members to qualify for room (12)I would also require CRB checks for them too. I don’t like Nazi’s or Commie’s, I’m an equal opportunities discriminator against dickheads, whatever rubbish they spout!

The shop assistant refused service because of this thug’s refusal to embrace the diversity, ethnicity and rights of others.
—

Note the word assistant, note the absence of the words owner or policy director. Personal reason for not wanting to deal with someone are just that, personal, and they clearly were not aligned with the store’s customer service policy. This mans refusal to embrace diversity and ethnicity is absolutely irrelevant to him buying a pair of jeans.

He saw the guy as a threat perhaps to him and certainly to his community and work colleagues.
—

Tell me, which side of the counter was the man whose family are under 24 hour police protection due to death threats, which side of the counter was the man on who receives death threats on a weekly bases and has been sent to hospital after a violent kicking.

If a shop refused to serve a Jew or a black person or a homosexual that would be an example of the shop doing what Tommy does and we would oppose that.
—

What……

It is the ability to see a issue from all sides that make somebody intelligent not their ability to get everything all mixed up.
—

It is, which makes me scratch my head every time you lot throw civil liberties out the window when the victim of the case at hand happens to be someone with views counter to yours, then you get mixed up and created wild claims to try and rationalize your position, such as if an edl remember is refused service on the basis of the thoughts in their heads that’s ok, but if it happened to a jew then that shops just like the edl so we will oppose…

Its crazy.

Circle Jerk Collective
A shop worker with an unblemished work record for 7 years at the store and you take the word of a total scumbag? You’re not interested in the witnesses version either.

A shop worker with an unblemished work record for 7 years at the store and you take the word of a total scumbag? You’re not interested in the witnesses version either.
—

Im not one to go into theory’s, the shop offered an apology and a token of compensation, why would a shop with their(welcomed)policy’s on diversity take the side of Tommy over an employe with an unblemished record?

This is not an issue, a guy stepped out of line in relation to company policy, yea we are all human, we have emotions we have beliefs and routinely it can be hard to balance those with the realities of the working place.

A small incident took place it was dealt with well, its over, the issue here is the left parading this as some huge victory and again displaying the nature of the society they want to impose on all.

‘Im not one to go into theory’s'(sic)
‘If a shop owner had read about female circumcision in the news paper for instance and addressed anyone who he suspected of following a religion that in some way promoted it in the same manner, can you imagine the melt down that would take place on these pages..’ #7.
‘you’re a fascist and its extremely apparent to any one who is not.’ #9.
‘he had no right to say fuck off I am not serving you. You are employed to do a job not make political points.’ #14.
‘Maybe you’re should learn what it means before the next time you throw it about backed by nothing more than assumptions.’ #17. Hark at the hypocrisy.
‘why would a shop with their(welcomed)policy’s on diversity take the side of Tommy over an employe with an unblemished record?’ Poor judgement on the spur of the moment. In fairness, the store isn’t the first one to take the side of the customer rather than a member of staff. The fear of litigation is strong.

Circle Jerk Collective
Do you seriously believe that you can convert Liberal Conspiracy supporters into wanktoids?

#7 Is not a theory concerning what took place, its an example of how the attitude would be different around here if the tables were turned and it was anyone bar Tommy being turned away. Whats you’re point.

#9. You believe people should lose liberties on the count of their beliefs? You’re a fascist. It was reported that those words were used and there was no objection from the company – in fact just an apology and compensation. Whats you’re point?

#17 Yes maybe he should, before he assumes I am middle class and am privileged enough to have never worked such jobs. Point?

Poor judgement on the spur of the moment. In fairness, the store isn’t the first one to take the side of the customer rather than a member of staff. The fear of litigation is strong.
—

Ok, you have trouble accepting the stated affairs, the above is true, yet are you putting you’re logic next to the chances of one of the most well known people perceived to be a racist in the entire country starting trouble with a person who is not white and coming out on top because some in the business chain were fearful that would be the case if it reached court? Seems fair fetched.

53. Greta ~ Having a different point of view to you does not mean I am trying to convert you, please be more secure in you’re self, I know you are very intolerant but you are in no way a victim here.

Us ‘shluts’ are tolerant. The fact that we don’t clean behind the fridge shows how tolerant we are. Do you eat cauliflower’s and apple’s by you’re self?

Us ‘shluts’ are tolerant. The fact that we don’t clean behind the fridge shows how tolerant we are. Do you eat cauliflower’s and apple’s by you’re self?
—

This is the edl topic not the ukip one…the recording shows a joke between the women and bloom greeted by laughter and not a single complaint in the room. Yet the intolerant left have to throw their arms up and down screaming because a man said a word they do not like…emotional maturity..eh.

Did I mention anything on this thread about political parties?
Oh no, I didn’t did I? It was you who did.

Us ‘shluts’ are tolerant. The fact that we don’t clean behind the fridge shows how tolerant we are.
—

Clearly you are talking about bloom calling women who don’t clean behind the fridge sluts, the story doing the rounds as we speak. Point of you’re comment was? Oh so you could deny it. Get a life & stop assuming people are as stupid as you.

42 Julie burchill quit the guardian before,she came back as a transgender phobe, over what she said was anti semeticism, and the guardian doesn’t discover Israellis that are responsible for treating the Palestinians badly, but the Jews, go to Harry’s place to see if they have records of the guardians anti semeticism, or CIF watch

You accuse me of being intolerant and I respond in a tolerant light-hearted way.
Your retort is that I’m stupid.
Who’s intolerant?

You are intolerant, I disagree with global warming and since then you and you’re activist mafia have followed me around the site throwing insults that have nothing to do with the subject at hand and calling me “Circle Jerk Collective”

What happened to Chaise etc? The older ones who actually had a chin and were capable of debate, waste of time.

You’re on a left-of-centre website so, if you expect regulars to agree with your right-of-centre, views you’ll have wait until the bitter end of life and die disappointed. Hey ho.

Whats right-of-centre about believing a man causing no issue should be served in a shop? Its a business transaction and both individuals should keep personal politics out of it.

If Tommy took his beliefs to someone just trying to get through a bloody work day I would be disgusted, more so than with the individual who had something to lose but stood up for his beliefs anyway, its an imperfect world, it can be hard to navigate, what it is not is an issue of politics, as the left try to make it every time this guy gets refused a can of coke on his daily business.

“The great virtue of a free market system …..it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It’s the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another”.
Milton Friedman.

I never believed this when I first read it and I don’t now, maybe if it was a matter of life and death.

Collective
Your pseudo naivety on this matter is touching.
The publicity seeking scumbag carries his own china shop with him.

This is not an issue of left/right but of liberty. In a democracy you are free to legally trade irrespective of your politics or your past.

@46 You are not “seeing all sides” You are changing your value system selectively based on the identity of the actors. This is both hypocritical (Ok for right wingers to be discriminated against but not EM or LGBT ?) and indicative of the arbitrary justice characteristic of totalitarianism

@ 65 – It is said that the only place in the world where Arabs and Jews peacefully co-exist is Knightsbridge.

[67] agree, totally – but principles can easily be smothered under a barrage of wah, wah, wah, we hate Robbo type sentiments.

Our Tommy may be a disagreeable fellow but is he really any worse than the sinister business or political class who have made their way to the top of the greasy pole on the back of other peoples misery?
Guys like this for example
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/truth_-_kissinger.jpg

Perhaps the plucky sales assistant refuses to serve oil rich plutocrats, or sleazy arms dealers as well?

@68 Would probably be a fair % of Selfridges punters. Londons “wealth” (it’s actually been bankrupt since 2008) is built on plutocracy and corruption – aka the financial services industry.

68.
An incident occurred and you do not have the full facts yet you assume that it is purely about who the person is rather than what actually happened.

An incident occurred and you do not have the full facts yet you assume that it is purely about who the person is rather than what actually happened.
—

That is what liberals do, some behavior, some problem, some social issue is pointed out and you accuse them of only doing so because of the color of the persons skin or the religion they follow, you accuse them of this to such a degree you ignore or give a pass to the actual issue at hand.

But when something takes place with a guy you don’t happen to like, despite the version of events being confirmed by the company its self, despite it being yesterdays news, despite you having no evidence what so ever to suggest anything else, you still can not let it go.

People you don’t like can not be discriminated against, its always something they did. People you do like can do no wrong..sounds like the world view of a teenage girl towards her favorite boy bands..

[70] no, that’s not right – I’m commenting more about posters who advocate a workers attitude as being the arbiter of who, or doesn’t get served.

I just wish people would wake up to the fact that hating Robbo equates to little more than a comfort blanket for certain sorts of liberals.

He now cannot walk down certain streets, get served in some London stores or drive through Luton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ackD5iEIPD4

Collective
You’ve seen how the scumbag behaves in public yet you take his side with nothing other than the turd’s phone cam and his version of events to go by.

a&e
No, you’re not. The comment #68 that you made implies that he was refused service because of who he is.
The obnoxious git video that you’ve linked was aired some time ago and I don’t think anyone needs a reminder.

Customer: Why isn’t this in black?
Shop Assistant: What a racist comment is that? How dare you? That’s an appalling thing to say. You disgust me, get out of my way.
Customer: I’m making the point that …
Shop Assistant: You, sir, are a racist. You’re disgraceful. That’s disgraceful. [hits customer with copy of store brochure]
Shop Assistant (to passing ITV reporter): You’ll get a lot worse than that.

The Circle Jerkers: Well done that man.

@ the Collective, 7.00pm September 20

“You are intolerant, I disagree with global warming and since then you and you’re activist mafia have followed me around the site throwing insults that have nothing to do with the subject at hand and calling me “Circle Jerk Collective”

What happened to Chaise etc? The older ones who actually had a chin and were capable of debate, waste of time.”

Chaise etc eventually had enough of wilfully ignorant right wingers perhaps?
It didn’t matter what that commenter stated ad infinitum. Ignorant, cowardly conservative ‘arguments’ were repeatedly debunked, yet those same arguments were repeated with boring familiarity.

Try reading without blinkers, you never know you might learn a thing or 2 outside of your “circle Jerk” – oh and please note, that is only the second time I’ve used that phrase, every other time it was an insinuative quip about dribbles 😉

The reason why I now call you “the Collective” is because I identified your writing style and outlook as “ob” so I couldn’t resist seeing you as multiple personas, and even though you showed there was more than one light on, there still seems to be nobody home in terms of understanding the world around us, especially on sciency things!

Eventually even Chaise started writing stuff in response that got deleted. It’s what happens when you feel like you are banging your head against a brick wall. Does that help?

Or are you going to continue with your own stereotypes, because be warned, I have my own list to throw back at you. Yet ultimately, both are boring. You have stated on another thread to me that you have an interest in history, instead of constantly been on the attack, try citing it, all of it. That may be more useful in the future…

Chaise may well have left for those reason yet I am not a part of it.

Disagreeing with the chronically inconsistent, unproven by real world observations science of global warming does not make you deaf and right wing, neither does disagreeing when the left announce a civil victory because someone was refused business due his beliefs, neither do the past debates I had with chaise, such as inheritance tax should not be 100% etc.

The reason why I now call you “the Collective” is because I identified your writing style and outlook as “ob” so I couldn’t resist seeing you as multiple personas.
—

Easily excited aren’t you?

Try reading without blinkers, you never know you might learn a thing or 2 outside of your “circle Jerk” – oh and please note, that is only the second time I’ve used that phrase, every other time it was an insinuative quip about dribbles
—

Circle jerk (sexual practice) A circle jerk is a sexual practice in which a group of men or boys form a circle and masturbate themselves or each other.

Im not a homosexual, you would not be insulting me if I was, its just a reflection on you’re character..

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/09/20/the-palpable-politicization-of-science-by-global-warming-alarmists/

Oh and by the way, the above gives a small insight into the world of those who do not believe in global warming, it would be a lot better to understand it than dismiss their claims as being unaware.

There is little point of us turning this site into a platform on which we constantly attack each other so lets call an end to that now.

@ Collective, 6.43pm September 21

“There is little point of us turning this site into a platform on which we constantly attack each other so lets call an end to that now.”

Agreed, in terms of history, in what way do you see people like Tommy Robinson? Do you see any parallels between his oft stated outlook and anyone else in those books you read? Could that be the reason why so many people are suspicious of him?

If a shop assistant wants to make a point about their beliefs by refusing to serve someone, I can’t argue with that. I can have a certain amount of respect for anyone who will put their beliefs before their employment.

But that really ought to have been the result: he should have been sacked, or at least disciplined – or better still, he would have shown some class had he simply walked. But to swear at a customer, refuse to serve them, and expect to keep your job is trying to have things both ways.

You can gloat about this assistant refusing to serve Robinson’s friend, Sunny, but once again, you’ve made yourself a hostage to fortune. If a white shop assitant refuses to serve Weyman Bennett, who also has convictions and a rather unsavoury record, what will you have to say about that?

That is the problem. You state as if it were a firm principle one week what you will happily ignore or deny the next. There is certainly a principle in someone refusing to serve someone – and being prepared to lose their job over it; there is no principle, let alone sense, in arguing that someone should have a right to refuse service AND also to keep their job.

79. Lamia
Where is your proof?
You were not there.
The fact that you’ll take the word of an obnoxious turd says quite a bit about you.

[74] ‘The comment #68 that you made implies that he was refused service because of who he is’ – look back over the thread, there are posters here who saying exactly that; it is OK not to serve the aramani loving EDL leader because of who he is – see @3, for example, which suggests those with a history of violence are not entitled to services (because they are violent thugs).

Bizarrely the OP takes the line that the sales assistant was valiantly fighting against an oppressive management culture of zero contract hours, and cold management speak – but the simple fact is discriminating against customers because of what they THINK is against the law however much we may dislike the ideology they subscribe to (Equality Act 2010).
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/before-the-equality-act/guidance-for-service-providers-pre-october-2010/what-the-law-says/

There are allegations to the effect that the sales assistant told either Robbo, or his mate to ‘fuck off’ – are there counter claims that Robinson abused the salesman first, and this was the actual reason he refused to serve him?

The brief youtube clip does not contain any such remarks by the salesman – for example he does not say I’m refusing to serve you because you have abused me, or because you have behaved aggressively – no, he just says, ‘I’m not serving you’ without any explanation.

Perhaps the subsequent free meal from Selfridges was provided because they recognised staff had not acted within the spirit of the law, and because they did not wish to be associated with the sort of discriminatory behaviour that liberals are usually at the forefront of objecting to?

81

To be fair, most people who have a history of violence will not be known to most shopkeepers, Robinson is well known to a lot of people from the publicity he courts and that which he tries to avoid.

We often make decisions about who we will and will not deal with, it was pointed-out on a recent thread that at one stage shops would bar produce from South Africa but not all shops, this was supported by some but not others, which is what is happening here. Of course this was as much of a value judgement as the shop assistant refusing to serve Robinson.

let alone sense, in arguing that someone should have a right to refuse service AND also to keep their job.

To be fair pretty much all stores reserve the right to refuse service, there are instances where it is illegal for them to do so, re: on basis of skin colour etc, the issue appears to be that a frontline worker made the decision themselves without deferring to the whims of management. Which will never do…

[82] well, perhaps in future sales assistants will be required to submit a list to their employers detailing who they will, and will not provide a service to – outfits like Selfridges would then be able to check whether or not such a position is in fact legal?

I am not a lawyer but on the face of it this seems like a case of discrimination given that there does not appear to be any extenuating circumstances, aside from a dislike of the customer(s) to justify the way the sales assistant acted in the way he did?

Tommy Robinson is a knob, if I had a shop (f**k all chance as the rent would be £££)I’d still sell to him though.

steveb
What has not stocking produce from a country got to do with this?

I case anyone hasn’t noticed, the thug with the camera is a nasty piece of work who deliberately creates disturbances. The incident at Selfridges is not exception. The sales assistant is phased by the turd’s intimidating, aggressive behaviour. In fact, the man looks scared.

84

I see this refusal as being what is referred to as ‘free’ in relation to the market, nobody is compelled to do what they do not wish to. I made a similar point on the thread regarding the co-op refusing to stock/display lad’s mags, once we start compelling suppliers to supply by law, we are in a Stalinist state. We are free to choose what we sell and buy (within the law) and that covers the laws on discrimination, which I believe hasn’t been contravened in this particular instance.

With regard to how the retailer chooses to deal with a member of staff who makes such a decision is another matter.

[87] ‘We are free to choose what we sell and buy’ – thats just not true.
Hotel providers cannot refuse gay customers.
Landlords can no longer hang signs saying ‘no blacks, no irish’.
Department stores cannot refuse to serve people based on what their sales staff think their customers might be thinking (or what they might have said in the past).

The legislation is linked @81 – there may be loopholes but the act is devised to prevent discriminatory practices, even if the person being discriminated against is unlikely to pass the ideal citizen test.

88

We can choose (within the law) to serve who we like, that means as long as it does not contravene the laws on discrimination, which I did make clear in my post at 87. The examples you give do contravene the law, so they aren’t really valid when comparing the refusal to serve Robinson.

As I have also pointed-out, the action which an employer takes against the employee for refusal to serve someone is an entirely different matter which may or may not become part of an industrial tribunal.

@the a&e charge nurse, 3.44pm September 22

Is this what you are referring to in your arguments?

“Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.”
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
-Voltaire

Is refusing to serve someone like him an absurdity, given the fact that if he had his way, 10% of this country would get a 1 way ticket to Dogger Bank? How would ‘Tommy’ deal with the rest of us in the situation that he had power, and objected to his own attitudes? (Not that I’m suggesting he would of course, in the same way that people in Germany scoffed at the camp, moustachioed one getting power in the late 1920’s) Would he treat the 2nd quote as toilet paper?

Well done to security for putting an end to the disgraceful behaviour of a thug.

[90] ‘How would ‘Tommy’ deal with the rest of us in the situation that he had power, and objected to his own attitudes?’ – there is no widespread support for the far right in this country, and I can’t imagine a time when there ever will be.

We should not sacrifice a civilised principles, like non-discrimination on the alter of how the worst of us might behave if given the chance. To my mind Tommy Robinson is an irrelevance except to the extent responses to him, or his ideology reflect a certain type of illiberalism.

To/ a&e – Most wondrous one this side of the Brahmaputra.
A profound thank you for your specious words.
May the gaseous interchange of destiny waft through your humble abode
and caress the olfactory centres of progenitor recognition.

92

Is it not equally as illiberal to compel retailers to serve Robinson?

[94] ‘Is it not equally as illiberal to compel retailers to serve Robinson’ – no, not according to the law.
Are you advocating a system based on the personal prejudices of shop staff?

95

You haven’t answered my question but I will answer your’s.

The law allows retailers and/or their employees to refuse service providing it doesn’t contravene the law. It is then the employer’s perogative to deal with said employees in any way they choose (providing it is within the law). We do not have a law that compels retailers/employees to serve everyone except where the law specifically states that exclusion is tantamount to discrimination. Robinson does not fall into that category. Economic liberalism (which is what is being discussed) allows all the actors the freedom to choose (within the law)

[96] Service providers are not allowed to discriminate unlawfully when providing goods or services to people.
Discrimination when providing services means:
*refusing to provide a service
*providing a lower standard of service
*offering a service on different terms than you would to other
people.

It is unlawful to discriminate in providing goods, facilities or services to the public on the grounds of sex, race, disability, gender, sexual orientation, and religion or BELIEF.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/before-the-equality-act/guidance-for-service-providers-pre-october-2010/what-the-law-says/

Further – You must not do something to someone which has (or would have) a worse impact on them and on other people who share a particular protected characteristic than on people who do not share that characteristic. Unless you can show that what you have done is objectively justified, this will be what is called indirect discrimination. ‘Doing something’ can include making a decision, or applying a rule or way of doing things.

For example: A shop decides to apply a ‘no hats or other headgear’ rule to customers. If this rule is applied in exactly the same way to every customer, Sikhs, Jews, Muslims and Rastafarians who may cover their heads as part of their religion will not be able to use the shop. Unless the shop can objectively justify using the rule, this will be indirect discrimination’ (same source).

As far as I know Selfridges do not exhibit a no-sales sign to those who may be right of Nigel Farage, or have been in trouble with the law before?
Put another way, if the case was contested in court would the store be able to justify the sales assistant’s actions assuming neither Robinson or his co-shopper was abusive or aggressive to the man who refused to serve him?

@ 96 I would argue that in reality the shop assistant does not have an actors liberty in this context. His liberty to act is constrained by his employment contract, such that unless “management” decreed that a particular customer/group of customer were to be denied service, he is obliged to serve anyone behaving legally, or breach that contract. All actors do not have equal rights in a free market, as the nature of trade means that one set of rights are always subservient to another set (which is why “positive rights” are a circular firing squad to everyone except lawyers).
If this were not the case, and all individuals employed to provide a service were allowed to subjectively determine who should receive that service, the service economy, and much of the public sector, would grind to a halt.

… assuming neither Robinson or his co-shopper was abusive or aggressive to the man who refused to serve him

That brief video on the internet shows someone threatened.

Angry git was turfed out of a casino later on – Average day then for a modern-day petit-bourgeois thug.

John: “There’s nothing responsible about taking it upon yourself to dictate your employers policies.”

It’s clearly a growing strand of opinion on the right that morals and ethics are a luxury which you have to earn through seniority, and you have no right to speak out. (Whistleblowers? More like traitors!)

A few years ago, I briefly temped as admin for a hearing aid company whose business model was hideous. If the door-to-door sales guys didn’t keep their sales rate up they were out on your ear. Basically the only way to do this was to pressurise confused elderly people, and imply to them that the top-of-the-range model was the only one available, and ignore any silly ideas they might get about fixing their old one. Not illegal, I’m sure, but…

OK, authorised tactics weren’t written down anywhere, but in reality, you either found employment which was more to your taste or you got with the f***ing programme and shut your sanctimonious little face. (Of course nowadays people who left would have to risk benefit sanctions for being sacked or rejecting a “reasonable” offer of employment.)

I’m sure John wouldn’t support that ethos, but he apparently would defend to the hilt the company’s right to enforce it on their employees.