Correct Chappers, she's announcing that on 4th September she removes her bikini bottoms - top girl [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
|
|
08-12-10, 07:49 PM
Correct Chappers, she's announcing that on 4th September she removes her bikini bottoms - top girl [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
08-12-10, 08:00 PM
Excellent debate [smiley=thumbsup.gif]. I personally do not have a problem with removing my helmet before paying for my fuel. I feel it is a matter of politeness to engage in a conversation/transaction with another individual with my face uncovered. If a volunteer wearing a crash helmet knocked on your door selling raffle tickets for their respective charity, would you buy some?
My earlier point relating to shop owners who only allow two children in their premises at one time, in my view, is blatant discrimination. Many retailers have adopted these measures to combat shoplifting, but some adults steal from shops too.
08-12-10, 08:10 PM
We all have prejudices, it is human nature and normally founded on negative experiences and stereotyping. What is important is to not allow your prejudices to effect the way in which you treat people.
The issue with the Pizza Hut incident, from my understanding of what I have seen on the news, is not the fact that the four lads were asked for payment upfront, but the fact that a group of similar age white lads who were in the restaurant at the same time were not asked. Therefore the four lads assumed, rightly or wrongly that they were asked for payment upfront based on the colour of their skin. That in my opinion is discriminatory and I am appalled that such attitudes still exist.
With regard to crash helmets, we choose to ride motorcycles and make that decision knowing that we have to wear a crash helmet. Now if a garage has made a policy decision about the removal of crash helmets by ALL persons riding motorcycles/moped then that is a condition of service made by the petrol station which I have to respect. If I disagree with that policy then I can vote with my feet and use another petrol station. I certainly don't feel discriminated against or criminalised because of it. It would be much more discriminatory or criminalising if the petrol stations decided to only make the moped riders take their helmets off but everybody else can keeps theirs on. The petrol station are not saying, because you ride a bike you are more likely to nick petrol, they are saying, if you are going to steal petrol then I'm going to do everything I can to make sure you are identified and caught.
It's no different to a nightclub having a dress code stating no hoodies or trainers etc etc. It is a condition of entry or service.
08-12-10, 08:19 PM
Ken, another reason the shops take this policy is that some customers find large groups of teenage children intimidatory even though in the majority of cases the children are just being 'children'. Again its the minority that spoil it for the majority, but how does the shopkeeper decide who to allow in and who not to allow in. By saying only two children at a time, your not saying you are not allowed in ever, but only a two a time. Just something for consideration. ;DOriginally Posted by monday21
08-12-10, 08:55 PM
Ken, another reason the shops take this policy is that some customers find large groups of teenage children intimidatory even though in the majority of cases the children are just being 'children'. Again its the minority that spoil it for the majority, but how does the shopkeeper decide who to allow in and who not to allow in. By saying only two children at a time, your not saying you are not allowed in ever, but only a two a time. Just something for consideration. ;D[/quote]
I accept what you are saying Chris, but could you imagine the public outrage that would ensue if this policy was extended to cover adults.
08-12-10, 08:59 PM
The 2 at a time rule, generally applies to small sweet shops etc. I've never seen it on a 'normal shop'. It's usually for smaller newsagents that are on the routes to and from schools so in those cases it is more likely to be kids nicking stuff....
08-12-10, 09:12 PM
Even if it was the case that adults were more likely to steal from these shops, I doubt very much that these rules would apply to customers over 16 years old. Whatever the reasoning behind the policy, it still alienates the younger generation.
08-12-10, 09:15 PM
in melksham you can fill your bike up wearing your helmet but in certain garages they ask you to remove it as you come in to pay WTF.sainsburys now ask you to get off your bike whilst fueling :and then remove your lid :
08-12-10, 09:30 PM
I am pretty sure this is a different issue.sainsburys now ask you to get off your bike whilst fueling
If you spill fuel it could catch fire on a hot engine.
A rider has been badly burnt around the groin area when this happened (roasted nuts anyone).
If your bike is on the stand then the outcome is likely much better for you and everyone else.
If it's not on the stand you can't get away quickly, you might drop the bike on yourself and make a bigger fuel spill.
Whether you agree with the policy on not, I believe this part is about safety and not theft.
If you buy from a private company you do so on THEIR terms full stop. This is not unlawful discrimination.
08-12-10, 09:35 PM
Maybe we could start a list of those petrol stations that ask you to remove lids so we can all have an informed choice over whether we go there. This might also help indicate the extent of the "problem". I have only been asked twice and on one of those occasions I was in the queue waiting to pay. I was asked to remove my helmet, I asked "Why?" and was told there was a sign on the door. I said I didn't see any sign but offered my credit card and said "are you refusing my offer of payment for the fuel?" Payment was immediately taken and I kept my lid on. Funniest part was the guy behind me who said he found me very intimidating in my "biker gear". ;D ;D ;D Well, I guess size does matter after all...
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
