For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

General chat room. Pompey related or not, but PLEASE keep it reasonably clean.

Moderators: Kingofstar, Chris_in_LA, lakespfc, Admin, General Mods

User avatar
Lost in Transportation
Guy Whittingham
Posts: 8379
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 11:37 am
Location: Birmingham

For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by Lost in Transportation »

Image
Watching wheels spin and dust settle.
User avatar
Portchester PFC
Kev the Kitman
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:46 pm
Location: Portchester, the seed of Portsmouth

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by Portchester PFC »

That did make me chcukle i must admit !

It is a good point though, should a ligitimate customer buying produce legally be refused service by an employee observing their own religious beliefs ?

Personally i believe that if they were not happy with serving such customers at this time then they are not able to perform the role they are being employed to do. Same goes for any religion/way of life.
Heaven's Light Our Guide
User avatar
This Time Next Year
Kev the Kitman
Posts: 3269
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Portchester
Has liked: 1 time

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by This Time Next Year »

Portchester PFC wrote:That did make me chcukle i must admit !

It is a good point though, should a ligitimate customer buying produce legally be refused service by an employee observing their own religious beliefs ?

Personally i believe that if they were not happy with serving such customers at this time then they are not able to perform the role they are being employed to do. Same goes for any religion/way of life.
I'm no laywer, but I'd hazard a guess that anyone can be "refused service" by any person for any and no reason at all. Certainly if they are purchasing alcohol.

The employer of the cashier may take a dim view on it, but I'd be surprised if refusal of service was actually illegal.

(Assuming no threats, violence or abuse occured as part of the refusal etc.)
User avatar
Locky_McLockface
Guy Whittingham
Posts: 9821
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:16 pm
Location: Cosham & Copnor
Contact:

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by Locky_McLockface »

Contract Law, innit. When you place the goods you wish to purchase on the belt, you are offering the retailer a contract to buy said goods (at a price to be agreed). The retailer can accept the contract or refuse it, for whatever reason. It is perfectly legal, also, for you to refuse the offered price and make an alternative offer, which the retailer can then agree or refuse, as they wish.

On occasions, I have people try to haggle over price in my shop. I always put the goods back on the shelf. At this point, the customer invariably takes the goods back off the shelf, and puts them back on the counter. Legally, this is a completely new set of contractual negotiation (because I have returned the goods to the shelf and the customer has retrieved them), and I am perfectly entitled as retailer to offer the contract price at whatever level I like (in my instance, higher).

Anyway, I digress.

In this instance, the fact that the Muslim assistant has refused the contract for a reason not approved of by his employer is an internal disciplinary issue only.
I before E except when you run a feisty heist on a weird beige foreign neighbour
User avatar
This Time Next Year
Kev the Kitman
Posts: 3269
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Portchester
Has liked: 1 time

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by This Time Next Year »

the_lock_man wrote:Contract Law, innit. When you place the goods you wish to purchase on the belt, you are offering the retailer a contract to buy said goods (at a price to be agreed). The retailer can accept the contract or refuse it, for whatever reason. It is perfectly legal, also, for you to refuse the offered price and make an alternative offer, which the retailer can then agree or refuse, as they wish.

On occasions, I have people try to haggle over price in my shop. I always put the goods back on the shelf. At this point, the customer invariably takes the goods back off the shelf, and puts them back on the counter. Legally, this is a completely new set of contractual negotiation (because I have returned the goods to the shelf and the customer has retrieved them), and I am perfectly entitled as retailer to offer the contract price at whatever level I like (in my instance, higher).

Anyway, I digress.

In this instance, the fact that the Muslim assistant has refused the contract for a reason not approved of by his employer is an internal disciplinary issue only.
Yeah, those were the words I meant... ;-)

This slight quirk is also the bit of the law that catches a lot of people out, regarding prices on shelves etc. A customer (usually wearing a tracksuit) will tell you until they're blue in the face that the price on the shelf/hanger/stand says for example a £1, so you have to sell it for that price, and not the £3 it should be (for example). However, prices on shelves/items/hangers etc are merely the "invitation to tender" with the contract happening as you say at the till-point.
User avatar
Portchester PFC
Kev the Kitman
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:46 pm
Location: Portchester, the seed of Portsmouth

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by Portchester PFC »

the_lock_man wrote:Contract Law, innit. When you place the goods you wish to purchase on the belt, you are offering the retailer a contract to buy said goods (at a price to be agreed). The retailer can accept the contract or refuse it, for whatever reason. It is perfectly legal, also, for you to refuse the offered price and make an alternative offer, which the retailer can then agree or refuse, as they wish.

On occasions, I have people try to haggle over price in my shop. I always put the goods back on the shelf. At this point, the customer invariably takes the goods back off the shelf, and puts them back on the counter. Legally, this is a completely new set of contractual negotiation (because I have returned the goods to the shelf and the customer has retrieved them), and I am perfectly entitled as retailer to offer the contract price at whatever level I like (in my instance, higher).

Anyway, I digress.

In this instance, the fact that the Muslim assistant has refused the contract for a reason not approved of by his employer is an internal disciplinary issue only.
Cheers Lockie, a perfectly acceptable answer the the question posed :-)
Heaven's Light Our Guide
User avatar
Lost in Transportation
Guy Whittingham
Posts: 8379
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 11:37 am
Location: Birmingham

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by Lost in Transportation »

the_lock_man wrote:In this instance, the fact that the Muslim assistant has refused the contract for a reason not approved of by his employer is an internal disciplinary issue only.
Its somewhat odd though to have an refusal because of Ramadan.

I have asked the question, what do you do if you're working at the North Pole currently and attempting to observe Ramadan? Its bad enough for those Muslims at this latitude of the planet as their daily fast is longer.
Watching wheels spin and dust settle.
User avatar
Locky_McLockface
Guy Whittingham
Posts: 9821
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:16 pm
Location: Cosham & Copnor
Contact:

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by Locky_McLockface »

This Time Next Year wrote:
the_lock_man wrote:Contract Law, innit. When you place the goods you wish to purchase on the belt, you are offering the retailer a contract to buy said goods (at a price to be agreed). The retailer can accept the contract or refuse it, for whatever reason. It is perfectly legal, also, for you to refuse the offered price and make an alternative offer, which the retailer can then agree or refuse, as they wish.

On occasions, I have people try to haggle over price in my shop. I always put the goods back on the shelf. At this point, the customer invariably takes the goods back off the shelf, and puts them back on the counter. Legally, this is a completely new set of contractual negotiation (because I have returned the goods to the shelf and the customer has retrieved them), and I am perfectly entitled as retailer to offer the contract price at whatever level I like (in my instance, higher).

Anyway, I digress.

In this instance, the fact that the Muslim assistant has refused the contract for a reason not approved of by his employer is an internal disciplinary issue only.
Yeah, those were the words I meant... ;-)

This slight quirk is also the bit of the law that catches a lot of people out, regarding prices on shelves etc. A customer (usually wearing a tracksuit) will tell you until they're blue in the face that the price on the shelf/hanger/stand says for example a £1, so you have to sell it for that price, and not the £3 it should be (for example). However, prices on shelves/items/hangers etc are merely the "invitation to tender" with the contract happening as you say at the till-point.
Indeed, the best you can do in such an instance is complain about misleading advertising.
Lost in Transportation wrote:
the_lock_man wrote:In this instance, the fact that the Muslim assistant has refused the contract for a reason not approved of by his employer is an internal disciplinary issue only.
Its somewhat odd though to have an refusal because of Ramadan.

I have asked the question, what do you do if you're working at the North Pole currently and attempting to observe Ramadan? Its bad enough for those Muslims at this latitude of the planet as their daily fast is longer.
I guess if the person is a particularly devout Muslim, they take the "must not touch" quite literally, but common sense would suggest that they advise their supervisor of their refusal to touch such items before they go and sit on the till.

With regard to the Muslim in the Arctic, I suppose it again depends on the outlook of the person involved, and possibly their Imam. One would hope that they would take the pragmatic approach of observing fasting during the same hours as their family members "back home". It wouldn't be too good for Tesco Express to open up a branch in the Arctic Circle, so it would appear!
I before E except when you run a feisty heist on a weird beige foreign neighbour
User avatar
Lost in Transportation
Guy Whittingham
Posts: 8379
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 11:37 am
Location: Birmingham

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by Lost in Transportation »

the_lock_man wrote:I guess if the person is a particularly devout Muslim, they take the "must not touch" quite literally, but common sense would suggest that they advise their supervisor of their refusal to touch such items before they go and sit on the till.
If they were that devout then they shouldn't be working at Tescos at any time of the year, let alone Ramadan. Its rather stretching the credibility levels.
Watching wheels spin and dust settle.
User avatar
Locky_McLockface
Guy Whittingham
Posts: 9821
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:16 pm
Location: Cosham & Copnor
Contact:

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by Locky_McLockface »

Lost in Transportation wrote:
the_lock_man wrote:I guess if the person is a particularly devout Muslim, they take the "must not touch" quite literally, but common sense would suggest that they advise their supervisor of their refusal to touch such items before they go and sit on the till.
If they were that devout then they shouldn't be working at Tescos at any time of the year, let alone Ramadan. Its rather stretching the credibility levels.
What, on the basis that Jack Cohen was Jewish?
I before E except when you run a feisty heist on a weird beige foreign neighbour
HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife
Guy Whittingham
Posts: 9532
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:10 pm
Location: Now available in London

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife »

Lost in Transportation wrote:
the_lock_man wrote:In this instance, the fact that the Muslim assistant has refused the contract for a reason not approved of by his employer is an internal disciplinary issue only.
Its somewhat odd though to have an refusal because of Ramadan.

I have asked the question, what do you do if you're working at the North Pole currently and attempting to observe Ramadan? Its bad enough for those Muslims at this latitude of the planet as their daily fast is longer.
Their Mosque sets the timings.
Pompey Dave
Alan Knight
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Portsmouth

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by Pompey Dave »

Are we not missing a point here which is should anyone make the demand in print of "Listen my little Muslim militia"?
Ahh Frazzles, the king of snack foods...
User avatar
Locky_McLockface
Guy Whittingham
Posts: 9821
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:16 pm
Location: Cosham & Copnor
Contact:

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by Locky_McLockface »

Pompey Dave wrote:Are we not missing a point here which is should anyone make the demand in print of "Listen my little Muslim militia"?
I, for one, was trying to ignore the Hopkins woman's little self-publicising rantings. The best way to deal with people who scream "Look at me! Look at me!" the whole time is to ignore them. She is not worthy of this auguste organ's attention.




Sorry for sounding like Pomp, there.
I before E except when you run a feisty heist on a weird beige foreign neighbour
User avatar
Pompski!
Guy Whittingham
Posts: 9866
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 1 time

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by Pompski! »

She's great. She may not always be right but she has the bollards to say what most of us are thinking. :smt007
I am me, the universe and you.
User avatar
Locky_McLockface
Guy Whittingham
Posts: 9821
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:16 pm
Location: Cosham & Copnor
Contact:

Re: For Pompski: What Katie Hopkins wrote next...

Post by Locky_McLockface »

Pompski! wrote:She's great. She may not always be right but she has the bollards to say what most of us are thinking. :smt007
Ya know, I don't really worry about whether someone calls their daughter Summer or Georgia. Or, indeed, India.

And in fairness, I don't think poorly of someone because they are observing Ramadan. I do think someone who is observing Ramadan, who consequently refuses to touch alcohol, should mention to their employer that they are refusing to touch alcohol before they find themselves in a situation where they need to touch alcohol.

And I do think poorly of someone who says controversial things simply because they are controversial, in order to give themselves publicity and attention.
I before E except when you run a feisty heist on a weird beige foreign neighbour
Post Reply

Create an account or sign in to join the discussion

You need to be a member in order to post a reply

Create an account

Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute

Register

Sign in