[arista]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

is it a requirement that they have to be stinky before they are allowed in?

Of Course not
but many are
it is a Fact of the Homeless.

[kirklancaster]

Whether their decision to eject the black customers was Right or Wrong - and whatever the truth is of the REAL circumstances behind the headlines, what Starbucks has now done is to pander to Leftist Liberal Political Correctness through FEAR.

They have succumbed to same cancer which is eating its way through the entire Western world and their lily-livered action is yet one more nail in the coffin of TRUE freedom and democracy.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

Well, you said my posts have no empathy (probably baiting me), while at the same time making a post about Trump, and showing no empathy for him.

Well, you see, one's a multi millionaire who chose to be the president and is doing a bad job of it, the other are people without homes or any money or resources to whom a little bit of kindness can go a long way.

I don't know what to say if you think those two situations are in any way comparable.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Whether their decision to eject the black customers was Right or Wrong - and whatever the truth is of the REAL circumstances behind the headlines, what Starbucks has now done is to pander to Leftist Liberal Political Correctness through FEAR.

They have succumbed to same cancer which is eating its way through the entire Western world and their lily-livered action is yet one more nail in the coffin of TRUE freedom and democracy.

That's ridiculous, allowing homeless people to use the bathroom is not a political issue, especially not a partisan one.

It's an issue of empathy.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Well, you see, one's a multi millionaire who chose to be the president and is doing a bad job of it, the other are people without homes or any money or resources to whom a little bit of kindness can go a long way.

I don't know what to say if you think those two situations are in any way comparable.

What happened to us all being treated equally, no matter what your background?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

What happened to us all being treated equally, no matter what your background?

Right, I can see that you're just trolling and I won't rise to it.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Right, I can see that you're just trolling and I won't rise to it.

Fair do's.

[smudgie]

Excellent.
Now if they could pop a shower in for them and a complimentary coffee that would be fantastic.

[Amy Jade]

Very kind. I do hope people do not take advantage though.

Travellers used to come into my place of work which have toilets you can use without being a customer and they would block the toilets to everyone else so they could wash. I have seen them block a disabled toilet for 20 minutes leaving a poor woman outside waiting until security kicked them out.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

What a cuck!

I know you're a big tough guy, and cuck is popular parlance amongst the frightfully tough alt-right, but how exactly does that sentence make him a cuck?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I know you're a big tough guy, and cuck is popular parlance amongst the frightfully tough alt-right, but how exactly does that sentence make him a cuck?

That's right, I'm bad.

Youtube video

[LeatherTrumpet]

iv never heard of cuck and im as alt-right as one can be

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

That's ridiculous, allowing homeless people to use the bathroom is not a political issue, especially not a partisan one.

It's an issue of empathy.

I KNOW all about empathy and sympathy and charity. I donate to several organisations from my battered bank account and directly into collection boxes and buckets when out and about.

None of the above has ANYTHING to do with allowing the homeless or any other NON-patrons to walk into a food eaterie off the street to use the toilet facilities.

Paying customers PAY for those facilities to be provided and maintained and hygienically cleansed because such costs are factored into the prices they pay for their food.

And Starbucks paying customers WILL see a rapid deterioration in the hygiene and conditions of those toilets and washrooms now this decision has been taken, AND they will see a rapid deterioration in the conditions within the eaterie and serving and 'waiting' areas too as those taking advantage of this new decision ABUSE it.

Not all homeless or bad people, but MOST of them - by the very nature of BEING homeless ARE not hygienic people and they and their clothes DO smell.

They have to WALK THROUGH most eateries to get to the toilets and therefore past customers in close proximity.

I do not think this will be a 'healthy' situation.

In addition, this new decision will result in Drunks and Drug Addicts taking advantage, and abusing this new rule.

As for 'not a political decision' - of COURSE, it is.

The organised furore which has cowered Starbucks into making this knee-jerk reaction is political - it is the same extreme left liberal anti-establishment rabble who are behind most of the other internet-driven 'protests' which rail against democracy.

Finally - give me a TRUTHFUL answer to this simple question:

You are sitting at home eating your dinner when there is a knock on the door.

You answer it to find 3 shabbily-dressed - obviously - homeless drunks who are propping each other up outside your door.

One asks if they can use your toilet as there isn't a public loo nearby and they are all bursting to go.

Would you greet them and invite them in?

When I have asked a similar question on here - more than once - about whether certain members would take in 'Asylum Seekers' and let them live and sleep in their homes, I NEVER received an answer.

So here's looking forward to yours.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

You answer it to find 3 shabbily-dressed - obviously - homeless drunks who are propping each other up outside your door.

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"

[Nicky91]

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"

so true

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

If people had some were to wash they would not stink if they had some were to sleep they would not be homeless if they had some thing to eat they would not be hungry.


It's humans that have created this word of rich and poor, and we are all to blame by being rats in a wheel.

Some humans choose to be homeless, and don't want others help

[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'.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

so true

NOTHING TRUE about that statement Nicky.

READ the post it refers to in order to ascertain the 'TRUTH' before putting tongue to the anus.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Whether their decision to eject the black customers was Right or Wrong - and whatever the truth is of the REAL circumstances behind the headlines, what Starbucks has now done is to pander to Leftist Liberal Political Correctness through FEAR.

They have succumbed to same cancer which is eating its way through the entire Western world and their lily-livered action is yet one more nail in the coffin of TRUE freedom and democracy.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

That's ridiculous, allowing homeless people to use the bathroom is not a political issue, especially not a partisan one.

It's an issue of empathy.

Or Dezzy
the Clever CEO Kevin
has got Free Worldwide Publicity
made the store better in Policy.


Some of the Tramps in NYC
are Junkies.
So the Manager better keep double checking the bogs.
That's Common Sense

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

So was this the Idea of Kevin Johnson? well then he's a cuck.

Does he believe that paying customers want to drink their coffee surrounded by loiterers and tramps?

And the toilet will be like the Trainspotting toilet within a month.

Well unlike the tramps you can go home to your own private toilet.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Well unlike the tramps you can go home to your own private toilet.

most of the city ones do too

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Some humans choose to be homeless, and don't want others help

Yes they will not like the New Army Camps base
idea that could start in Greater London
first.

After 3 strikes
you could get sent to the Falklands
to a Special base to be set up there.

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

most of the city ones do too

Yes the scammers
in USA and UK.

Both on Documentary's

[Matthew.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's a kind gesture and one I approve of. It would take someone with a worrying lack of empathy to be truly opposed to homeless people using the bathroom....

this