Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9992298)

It doesn't matter what charities you claim to support, it has no relevance to the topic at hand or what I said. Much of your rambling in this post has nothing to do with the topic at hand so I'm not entertaining it, this is not a political issue and your decision to make this about Asylum seekers is baffling and quite frankly desperate, you are trying to make a point by comparing apples and oranges.

Whether Starbucks allows homeless people to use their facilities or not is not politically motivated no matter how much you reach for it to be so. It's a matter of empathy and giving a couple of quid to Charity every month doesn't matter one bit, it does not make your opinion anymore valid.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9992298)

It doesn't matter what charities you claim to support, it has no relevance to the topic at hand or what I said."

^ What a frankly ludicrous statement.

Here are your OWN words from a previous response to one of my posts: "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.

So when it suits your purpose in one response, this issue is about 'Empathy', and yet in this response, you claim that my supporting Charities has NO RELEVANCE to EMPATHY.

Perhaps you should invest in some simple research into the psychology of Charity Donating before uttering ludicrous statements on a forum.

Read up on Bekkers and Wiepking or Snyder and Clary where you will CLEARLY learn that EMPATHY is among other motivations for donating to Charity.

You have NO knowledge at all of whether I have ever been homeless or not during my long life so you cannot KNOW whether I have 'Empathy' or not for the 'Homeless' in this matter.

I HAVE been homeless when I lost EVERYTHING I had ever worked for during the Property Crash of 2007 and I had to work 18 hour days 7 days a week to 'claw my way' upright' again over a decade.

So clearly your statement above that my donating to charity "has no relevance to the topic at hand or what I said." is utter rubbish.

I donate because I have empathy, and empathy - in your own words - is what this topic is about.

"Much of your rambling in this post has nothing to do with the topic at hand so I'm not entertaining it,"

^ The above is a mere thinly disguised insult.

I do NOT ramble in my posts, far from it, because EVERY sentence is carefully crafted with PURPOSE.

Your claim that my post "has nothing to do with the topic at hand" has already been rebutted above and you are not "entertaining it" because you have NO genuine rebuttal.

I am still awaiting civil responses to several questions which I have asked of you in an array of debates that we have been involved in, so perhaps you ate not "entertaining" those either.

"this is not a political issue... "

^ The above from you is frankly as ludicrous as the earlier from you.

Of COURSE, it is a "Political Issue".

Starbucks ejected two customers whom it said were NOT patronising its establishment and yet were refusing to leave; akin to Toysoldier ejecting someone from his shop for not betting or any Nightclub ejecting someone for anyone of a hundred breaches of 'House Rules' - SUCH is the rights of ANY establishment which has rules - although a TOTAL NON EVENT and unnewsworthy in any rational man's language.

EXCEPT for ONE FACT: the non-patrons involved were BLACK.

PURE AND SIMPLE and HONEST TRUTH.

Had they been WHITE, this 'incident' would NOT have made one-tenth of a column in the LOCAL Free Press 'rag'.

However, the fact that they were black raised this non-event and made it a POLITICAL ISSUE from the very instant that a Left-liberal Keyboard Warrior seized on it for his own agenda and it 'snowballed' out of all proportion to its illogical culmination.

It is 'POLITICAL' and THAT is THE only reason why we are discussing it now on here - it has become yet one more political football to be kicked around by Lefties and Righties in the hopes of SCORING a goal.

THAT is why you are posting with barely concealed anger and why I am responding to you; because from inception to conclusion to aftermath, this issue is CLEARLY political. -.

"and your decision to make this about Asylum seekers is baffling and quite frankly desperate, you are trying to make a point by comparing apples and oranges."

^ The above is disgusting and SHAMELESSLY blatant MISREPRESENTATION clearly affirming that YOU are the 'desperate' one here.

NOWHERE in my post did I EVER compare Asylum Seekers to the Homeless who are at the core of this issue.

I used a simile only in regards to YOUR reluctance to answer questions from me on other threads which pertained to the debate we were SPECIFICALLY having on THAT thread topic at the time.

Here is what I wrote:

"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."

I think that the truth is plain to see for any rational, non-partisan impartial reader.

"Whether Starbucks allows homeless people to use their facilities or not is not politically motivated no matter how much you reach for it to be so. It's a matter of empathy and giving a couple of quid to Charity every month doesn't matter one bit, it does not make your opinion anymore valid."

^ I am NOT the one who is so desperately 'reaching' - YOU ARE.

As already detailed earlier above; this issue is POLITICAL - it is a minor non-event which has been inflated to be POLITICAL, but I am not letting politics dictate my contributions to this thread, I am just a long-lived, experience-rich, mature businessman who is speaking the truth as he sees it.

And the truth as I see it is echoed by other highly intelligent members - as I predicted that it would - as this excerpt from my post attests:

"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'."

One only has to read Toysoldier's post to see that HIS DIRECT EXPERIENCE and opinion coincides with mine.

Originally Posted by Maru (Post 9992635)

This was the inevitable conclusion of the "equality campaign" they were running after this incident went viral, so no surprise there. What should really be getting people's goad is that Starbucks has now found a way to "capitalize" on their "new found" empathy and infamy, as if they weren't always trying to pretend they were an empathetic entity... the reason this move had to be made is because they got caught trying to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted everyone to 'believe' Starbucks was everyone's local pit-stop... meanwhile, having policies where they removed non-paying customers, and not spelling this out in full to the public, kind of goes against the "mission" of being a community meeting space. It'd be like a library kicking someone out for not donating to keep the lights on.

I think this is a very arrogant move and this corporate strategy is just more denial-ism imo. It's because they are a capitalist company and are trying to pretend they're something they aren't. They are not an organization, nor a non-profit... they are utilizing identity politics to maintain their bottom line. Make no mistake. This is what politics has really become, a way for many organizations, authors, pod casts, etc to get their "name" out there and hock their goods.. brands have always taken advantage of our tribal nature. This was something I was taught in school, that consumers tend to think of themselves and their brands as "members of a Tribe". Apple fans, Sony fans, Samsung fans, etc... all operate like a tribe. but I think this has gone too far. Starbucks sells coffee. That's it. Some people believe religion is a farce, because they sell to you from the pulpit while telling you God doesn't see $$$... but companies that run these campaigns are doing the same thing, they're selling people on a set of values to push product into your lap. But at least with the church, they actually do organize activities to help the local community... and many of them have been a part of those communities for a very long time, know people's faces, reach out to help when there's a disaster, etc.

Empathy my foot.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster (Post 9992893)

All in my opinion of course.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9992917)

Some people endlessly TALK of empathy whilst others quietly PRACTICE it. It’s the latter that are the doers - the ones that make a real difference. You are a doer my friend. Excellent post!!!

Talkers, doers, talkers, doers....

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 9992677)

I would have thought, rather than saying you can use our customer toilets, which seems gimmicky, it would be a much nicer gesture if these large wealthy companies set up wash and brush up rooms where you can clean yourself up and get a bun and a coffee. A hot shower and the use of facilities would be an amazing boon to someone living rough I would think and its not like the company can't afford it.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9992917)

Some people endlessly TALK of empathy whilst others quietly PRACTICE it. It’s the latter that are the doers - the ones that make a real difference. You are a doer my friend. Excellent post!!!

Talkers, doers, talkers, doers....

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9992971)

Quietly?

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9992979)

I wasn’t talking about me - but generally - although I consider I do my bit.

My point was that words are cheap - that applies to my words too, but I am not the one constantly spouting on about how caring I am and how full of empathy I am and how anyone that doesn’t share my views on certain issues lacks empathy. I do what I do but don’t constantly crow about it and that no doubt applies to many.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 9992973)

The CEO of Starbucks earns $9637.00 per hour

Average Starbucks employee gets $8.79

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9992983)

And also quite possibly the person you're trying to ridicule. Funnily enough for that very reason "doesn't share my views".

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9992986)

CEO of company earns more than waiter shocker!

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 9992973)

The CEO of Starbucks earns $9637.00 per hour

Average Starbucks employee gets $8.79

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9992995)

Well if you suggest people you don’t know lack empathy - they may bite back! Swings and roundabouts.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9992997)

Aren’t you missing the point though?

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9992999)

Or he's quite clearly pointed out language that contains no empathy whatsoever. He hasn't claimed to know a person. Ironically, you have.

And in doing so twisted his point.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9993010)

I don’t believe I have but no surprise you do. No one here is the ‘language’ police and they can interpret as they will. But when they attempt to present that interpretation as ‘fact’ they are skating on thin ice and will likely illicit a response that they may not see as very favourable.

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 9992998)

Disparity is too big, over thousand times. One of the things that have gone too far in capitalism

Originally Posted by Blue cat (Post 9993006)

There's nothing wrong with making life a bit easier for the homeless.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 9993031)

i don't think letting unwashed people use the facilities is a particularly hygienic in a store that sell food and drink, and it is sure to put some off from using the place.

I see nothing wrong with organisations sponsoring public facilities though