ANGRY - so I've 'leaked' to the Daily M**l

[SarzWix]

I don't think the point was that this is an urban myth, it's that this story has provoked outrage and disgust before anyone knows the full facts. Like whether the particular shop has a policy that it's employee was following.
And I agree with Zazen - the 'Daily Outrage' are the last people I would call about anything!

[di]

I totally agree that this is a very sensitive issue and dangerous ground to be getting het up about and drawing our own little conclusions about.We haven't heard the whole story.
However,I felt it highly unfair to accuse Hayley of spreading 'falsehoods/half truths' in an 'attempt to stir up hatred'.Maybe I misunderstood you Rixy,if so I apologise,but that's how I read your post.

[HayleyB]

Hi all, thanks for sticking up for me... No update.. Colin flew to South Africa Saturday night so is out of the loop...

Maybe putting this up here was wrong but I was literally spitting with rage when Colin told me what had happened (I thought he was in SA at the time). And believe me he is not the exaggerating type, if anything I tell him he's an balding OCD anorak - so any thought of inaccuracies would be incorrect, Colin always gets his facts right...

[SarzWix]

Yes, but Hayley, the point is that you might be stirring up angst about 'why' he wasn't served, without the full facts. If Seasprout is correct, and this is the policy of the shop, then the origins of the employee are completely irrelevant! It is quite an important distinction, I think.

[Rhona]

I agree with Sarz.

I know of a few shops - at different ends of the country, one in Sheffield - where employees are banned from serving people in uniform, period. That means paramedics, Police officers and military. That's fact, not liberal bellyaching.

No idea whether this shop had a similar rule and this employee was just following the rules, and I assume that no-one does on this thread, unless I've missed it. In which case, some of the comments and insinuations are perhaps a little out of order, in my view.

Nowt to do with whether I agree with such a rule - must have been unpleasant for the chap in uniform - but I think Zaz's analogy was a very good one; the skinhead/old lady/bricks.

[piskieinboots]

Why are some shops against serving people wearing a uniform? I honestly don't get that - although I accept that if it is a rule then a rule it is.

So, PC Plod getting his coffee and donut for refs may not be getting his coffee and donut for refs?

Odd innit

[Glutton4...]

Sorry if I'm being really thick here, but why on earth would you NOT serve someone just because they were in uniform?

[Brengirl]

Well we already have sexism, racialism. ageism, elitism, feminism so why not throw in a few more. We will end up having a brain but not be aloud to useitism!

[Glutton4...]

Well we already have sexism, racialism. ageism, elitism, feminism so why not throw in a few more. We will end up having a brain but not be aloud to useitism!

Yup - the world has gone mad!

[HayleyB]

Well there must be something as to why because apparently the Sun are running it on Sunday, It's Colin's brother (the lad's Dad) that will be featured in the paper, all I can say is that he must be really angry for him to this AND he WAS there ...

[FionaH]

Do you know WHY the shop wouldn't serve him yet?

[HayleyB]

Oh BTW, forgot to mention - the shop - doesn't have a 'uniform' policy...

[Brengirl]

Whatever the outcome Hayley, be it positive or negative. As citizens we must be allowed to protest. Our voice may not always be heard but it's the standing up to be counted that counts.

[piskieinboots]

I'm still needing to know why people in uniform can't be served in (some) shops - does that include girls/ladies wearing Burkas?

[zazen999]

Whatever the outcome Hayley, be it positive or negative. As citizens we must be allowed to protest. Our voice may not always be heard but it's the standing up to be counted that counts.

So presuming that the person who didn't serve is protesting; is that allowed?