[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

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.