[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Alf

It doesn't impact anyones life, but it will affect their business. Like I said, buy shares in Costa.

Read what Mokka said. McDonald and others allow everybody use their toilets too.

[Matthew.]

Originally Posted by Withano

This is a good thing for thousands of people. If homeless people being allowed to use a toilet negatively impacts your life, I’d argue that you’re a bit of a ****. Buy your overpriced coffee elsewhere...

this this this this this

[Twosugars]

and arguments about drug use or being stinking and filthy are nonsense. paying customers can be all those things too. let's not stigmatise the homeless, treat them like human beings.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Withano

This is a good thing for thousands of people. If homeless people being allowed to use a toilet negatively impacts your life, I’d argue that you’re a bit of a ****. Buy your overpriced coffee elsewhere...

That's what I'm getting at, they will.

I don't drink coffee anyway and have never been in a coffee shop in my life, but my point is, this is a terrible business move. Stop trying to turn it in to that people are somehow being against homeless people.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

This is a good thing for thousands of people. If homeless people being allowed to use a toilet negatively impacts your life, I’d argue that you’re a bit of a ****. Buy your overpriced coffee elsewhere...

I’m sure that is just what Starbucks don’t want to hear as then they may well go out of business. I hope your concern and empathy extends to those that lose their jobs - or are you more interested in making a political point!

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

i wonder what members would do if the local homeless banged on their doors and asked if they could come in for a sh1te?

amazing how lofty ideals can dissipate like snowflakes falling in a river

LT you do make me laugh. I do agree ,it's easy to say you'de do this and that,but would you in reality,I don't think so.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Read what Mokka said. McDonald and others allow everybody use their toilets too.

And. McDonalds is hardly the cleanest place to eat - and although I sometimes buy a Macci - I either eat it at home or in the car. I doubt I am alone in that - in fact I know I’m not!

[Kazanne]

Starbucks have worked hard to get where they are a nice clean classy coffee shop,but it seems now it will become the local 'dumping'(pardon the pun) ground for those who cannot be bothered to look for a public toilet, why should people who have worked hard investing in their business not have a say in who is allowed in ,besides it's rude imo to walk in somewhere and just use their loo without buying anything.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

And. McDonalds is hardly the cleanest place to eat - and although I sometimes buy a Macci - I either eat it at home or in the car. I doubt I am alone in that - in fact I know I’m not!

I never eat Maccy ds, but you'de be shocked at the lack of cleansiness in most of them.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Greg!

Do people who disagree with this just rather homeless people shat in the street or something

There are such things as public toilets you know! No need to use coffee houses or restaurants.

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

i wonder what members would do if the local homeless banged on their doors and asked if they could come in for a sh1te?

amazing how lofty ideals can dissipate like snowflakes falling in a river

They can not Enter through the Gate.

No one can enter my Office and Home
unless I say so.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I never eat Maccy ds, but you'de be shocked at the lack of cleansiness in most of them.

I know - I only have to take one look at the tables and floors to decide to eat in the car. The toilets are a definite no,no.

[Matthew.]

public toilets where you have to pay and sometimes you have to walk for ages to find one, like i said earlier particularly for those with bowel problems.

awful how in 2018 some public toilets require payment from those using it - going in to spend a penny and end up spending around 20 of them its disgusting

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Matthew.

public toilets where you have to pay and sometimes you have to walk for ages to find one, like i said earlier particularly for those with bowel problems.

awful how in 2018 some public toilets require payment from those using it - going in to spend a penny and end up spending around 20 of them its disgusting

exactly this

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Matthew.

public toilets where you have to pay and sometimes you have to walk for ages to find one, like i said earlier particularly for those with bowel problems.

awful how in 2018 some public toilets require payment from those using it - going in to spend a penny and end up spending around 20 of them its disgusting

I haven’t seen a public toilet you have to pay to use in years.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Matthew.

public toilets where you have to pay and sometimes you have to walk for ages to find one, like i said earlier particularly for those with bowel problems.

awful how in 2018 some public toilets require payment from those using it - going in to spend a penny and end up spending around 20 of them its disgusting

That's fair enough Matthew, but I personally would rather pay a pound to use a spotlessly clean, hygienic, and well maintained Public Loo than some of the 'free' ones which are stinking, unclean, unhygienic dives that have dirty seats or missing seats and no loo paper and where you have to raise your trouser legs up so that they are not mopping up the pools of urine which cover the floor.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

That's fair enough Matthew, but I personally would rather pay a pound to use a spotlessly clean, hygienic, and well maintained Public Loo than some of the 'free' ones which are stinking, unclean, unhygienic dives that have dirty seats or missing seats and no loo paper and where you have to raise your trouser legs up so that they are not mopping up the pools of urine which cover the floor.

Oh don’t - it’s just such an unpleasant memory. Some toilets are disgusting and I guess each each to their own - but totally with you on this. I would rather pay although I would be annoyed I had to.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Oh don’t - it’s just such an unpleasant memory. Some toilets are disgusting and I guess each each to their own - but totally with you on this. I would rather pay although I would be annoyed I had to.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

That's because I earn my own money, sorry for that, but them's the perks.

Irrelevant comment.

[Matthew.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

That's fair enough Matthew, but I personally would rather pay a pound to use a spotlessly clean, hygienic, and well maintained Public Loo than some of the 'free' ones which are stinking, unclean, unhygienic dives that have dirty seats or missing seats and no loo paper and where you have to raise your trouser legs up so that they are not mopping up the pools of urine which cover the floor.

I get what you’re saying, I honestly do, but what I’m getting at is there are some people with health problems, like Crohn’s or IBS, that can’t be picky about what state the toilets are in or else they could end up having an accident in public.

[Twosugars]

Oops, thread's been pruned

[user104658]

Anyone who thinks that this is a good idea has never worked in a highstreet shop, frankly.

Is it OK to stop someone from using the toilet because they are homeless? Absolutely not, and that would show a shocking lack of human empathy. But that's not the point nor the problem here; the problem is, this policy is essentially saying that they cannot stop anyone from coming in to use the toilets for any reason as that person can then claim that they were discriminated against for other reasons.

Use of the facilities MUST ALWAYS be at staff discretion. Staff should be trained to be fair in how they uphold this and never to deny anyone for arbitrary reasons... BUT... making it a free for all will be a disaster.

They will end up with drinking in the toilets, problems with drugs / needles, and people passed out in cubicles. Not in every outlet - but in many of them.

I would never stop someone from using the toilet for being homeless or for their general appearances. I will absolutely every single time stop people from using them if they're significantly under the influence.

I can't see this policy successfully lasting, being honest. It's been announced by a panicking company bigwig overzealously "protecting company image", but one who quite clearly has zero idea of the practicalities of retail at the customer-facing level.

A very common problem .

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Irrelevant comment.

You could be right, but nevermind, nobody got hurt. Chin up old boy!

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

i wonder what members would do if the local homeless banged on their doors and asked if they could come in for a sh1te?

amazing how lofty ideals can dissipate like snowflakes falling in a river

Private toilet versus public.

Dear me, basics aren't your strong suit are they?

[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.