Tory Donor Lord Bamford Funds The Reform...
News0 min ago
Blatant racism or not?
30 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/2fsuyal
This story seems a little confusing, when first you read it there is no doubt it was pure racism.
But then reading further down, the police had recently recommended that the restaurant started asking people to pay for their meal before dining, to combat a number of incidents where customers had left without paying.
Did these football players enter the diner with a certain attitude, which alerted the staff?
Had it been a group of over zealous white youths, that had been asked to 'pay up front', would there had been a story to write?
This story seems a little confusing, when first you read it there is no doubt it was pure racism.
But then reading further down, the police had recently recommended that the restaurant started asking people to pay for their meal before dining, to combat a number of incidents where customers had left without paying.
Did these football players enter the diner with a certain attitude, which alerted the staff?
Had it been a group of over zealous white youths, that had been asked to 'pay up front', would there had been a story to write?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
old git
you do it again - introducing <<over zealous>> and <<certain attitude>>
that isn't mentioned in the report - indeed what do they actually mean? 'Being guilty of walking into a Pizza Hut in possession of crinkly hair'?
- This is your 'spin' - it is dishonest and betrays your own prejudicial imagining of the incident.
<<'We were angry but we kept our cool. The police arrived and spoke to customers who were eating around us and they said we were fine.>>
It appears the staff take a generalised racist view that any young black men are suspicious and potential thieves.
Clearly this is wrong. In the circumstances I think the men involved showed admirable restraint. If I was picked out for that kind of prejudicial treatment I would be very angry.
.
you do it again - introducing <<over zealous>> and <<certain attitude>>
that isn't mentioned in the report - indeed what do they actually mean? 'Being guilty of walking into a Pizza Hut in possession of crinkly hair'?
- This is your 'spin' - it is dishonest and betrays your own prejudicial imagining of the incident.
<<'We were angry but we kept our cool. The police arrived and spoke to customers who were eating around us and they said we were fine.>>
It appears the staff take a generalised racist view that any young black men are suspicious and potential thieves.
Clearly this is wrong. In the circumstances I think the men involved showed admirable restraint. If I was picked out for that kind of prejudicial treatment I would be very angry.
.
I don't think they where asked to pay up fron because they where black, probably because they are a group of lads. This has the smell of one of those general decrees being taken literally. Ie all groups of same sex people over a certain size must pay up front for example. Then couple that with thick people with no common sense and hey presto!
Zeuhi
You accuse me of doing something that you yourself could be accused of.
/// 'Being guilty of walking into a Pizza Hut in possession of crinkly hair'? ///
Can't say I saw that mentioned in the report.
/// It appears the staff take a generalised racist view that any young black men are suspicious and potential thieves.///
Another generalisation that I cannot find in the report.
/// This is your 'spin' - it is dishonest and betrays your own prejudicial imagining of the incident. /// Precisely.
---------------------------------------------
----------
/// We were angry but we kept our cool ///
/// It got a little bit heated then he said: "If you're not going to pay the bill now I'm going to call the police to escort you off the premises."'///
/// He added: 'A group of men had been asked to leave. They weren't happy about this, but we spoke to them and they did leave.'///
"Angry but kept our cool".
"It got a bit heated"
"They weren't happy about this"
Well who do you believe?
You accuse me of doing something that you yourself could be accused of.
/// 'Being guilty of walking into a Pizza Hut in possession of crinkly hair'? ///
Can't say I saw that mentioned in the report.
/// It appears the staff take a generalised racist view that any young black men are suspicious and potential thieves.///
Another generalisation that I cannot find in the report.
/// This is your 'spin' - it is dishonest and betrays your own prejudicial imagining of the incident. /// Precisely.
---------------------------------------------
----------
/// We were angry but we kept our cool ///
/// It got a little bit heated then he said: "If you're not going to pay the bill now I'm going to call the police to escort you off the premises."'///
/// He added: 'A group of men had been asked to leave. They weren't happy about this, but we spoke to them and they did leave.'///
"Angry but kept our cool".
"It got a bit heated"
"They weren't happy about this"
Well who do you believe?
You have to blame the company. To introduce a policy of people paying up front, but then make it arbitrary is asking for people to call it unfair. Then they apologise, but explain there is nothing to apologise for.
It is impossible to know whether the staff discriminated because of the colour of their skin. Hopefully, the bad publicity will make them introduce a more transparent and even system.
It is impossible to know whether the staff discriminated because of the colour of their skin. Hopefully, the bad publicity will make them introduce a more transparent and even system.
There was an article a couple of weeks ago where a lone white individual boasted that he had consumed many meals at different restaurants and booted when the bill arrived. He said that he had saved £1000's in doing so over the past year. Maybe he wasn't the only person to do this but that article must have given many people thoughts how they could get away with it.
Here is the article
http://www.dailymail....g-central-London.html
http://www.dailymail....g-central-London.html
Our local Wetherspoons asked someone to leave because they were wearing a hat which they claimed was against their dress code. Turned out the guy was jewish and his faith required him to keep his head covered......still chucked him out though. Whetherspoons claim the code is designed to keep out hoodies.
Old Git
Here is a simple explanation of why you are dishonest and prejudiced and i am not.
I was asking questions about your original post with quotes directly from your post.
You were asking questions about a news item and implying their were aspects to it that in fact were not there - however, only by clicking on and reading the whole report could your 'embroidery' be identified.
// This is your 'spin' - it is dishonest and betrays your own prejudicial imagining of the incident. /// Precisely.
Well at least you admit to being dishonest and prejudiced. Personally I don't know exactly how this event transpired and how the people involved behaved as i wasn't there but I make a judgement based on the report not on my prejudices as you do.
In particular:
<<It appears the staff take a generalised racist view that any young black men are suspicious and potential thieves.>>
that is not a generalisation in that it applies to the staff involved in this incident and by the report of their actions and the fact they have since been retrained it is a reasonable judgement in the absence of any other explanation that their behaviour was racially based.
.
Here is a simple explanation of why you are dishonest and prejudiced and i am not.
I was asking questions about your original post with quotes directly from your post.
You were asking questions about a news item and implying their were aspects to it that in fact were not there - however, only by clicking on and reading the whole report could your 'embroidery' be identified.
// This is your 'spin' - it is dishonest and betrays your own prejudicial imagining of the incident. /// Precisely.
Well at least you admit to being dishonest and prejudiced. Personally I don't know exactly how this event transpired and how the people involved behaved as i wasn't there but I make a judgement based on the report not on my prejudices as you do.
In particular:
<<It appears the staff take a generalised racist view that any young black men are suspicious and potential thieves.>>
that is not a generalisation in that it applies to the staff involved in this incident and by the report of their actions and the fact they have since been retrained it is a reasonable judgement in the absence of any other explanation that their behaviour was racially based.
.
Latest Posts
Jokes2 mins ago
Vacuum Cleaner For Dog Hair...
Home & Garden6 mins ago
Shopping & Style8 mins ago
News9 mins ago
