[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I like how this has gone from a public business offering people to use the toilet to "if you don't allow gangs of drunks - not homeless people, DRUNKS - inside your home you're a bastard"

I never said anything about being a 'bastard' Shaun. That is unfair.

I KNOW from experience that a sizeable percentage of homeless people are either Drug Addicts or Alcoholics or both.

I also know that a sizeable percentage of drunken or drugged homeless - in addition to just drunks or druggies who are NOT homeless - WILL abuse this decision.

Again,' Time Will Tell' but I am stating that this decision WILL be abused and it will have a detrimental impact on Starbucks.

The costs of cleaning and maintaining the toilets will rise and the usual patrons of Starbucks WILL be adversely affected by this decision.

From shet all over the toilet seats to urine and vomit all over the floor, to syringes and burnt foil in the WC cubicles - life WILL NOT be the same.

From customers being hassled by drunken/drugged people for money/cigarettes to customers being made to wretch by the stench of unwashed clothes and bodies - life WILL NOT be the same.

I think that Toysoldier can illuminate us all here about any conflict between 'empathy' and the reality of allowing anyone but patrons to use the toilets in his shop.

EVERY bookies which I have been in now keep the toilets LOCKED and customers have to ask the staff for the key.

As a result, their toilets are much more hygienic and clean than they were when anyone could walk in from the streets and use them - and bear in mind that a lot of society's 'unfortunates' frequent high street bookies and ARE actually 'patrons'.

As for my hypothesis of 'three' drunken homeless, well let me reword the question to 'One non-drunk homeless man'.