Latest posts:
Rate this!
Peter Hoare
Member - 3 posts
I did wonder whether it was an April Fool, and then realised that this was the Daily Mail, so expect shoddy, over-sensationalised reporting.
I quote from the article itself: "The regulations say that bosses are responsible for protecting their staff from sexual harassment by customers".
Show of hands for anyone who disgarees with that in principle? No, didn't think so.
So, from there, you *could* conceivably get to the point where a barmaid takes her employer to a tribunal for being called "love". But until that happens, until it's found in her favour, until "large-scale compensation" is given, this is simply speculation.
Rate this!
Peter Hoare
Member - 3 posts
I fail to see the relevance of a hairdresser's own hair (or covering up thereof) to their quality and ability to cut hair. To the first two posters above, are you really saying that you'd refuse to have your hair cut by someone who was bald? Do you believe that the hairdresser cuts their own hair?
Rate this!
Peter Hoare
Member - 3 posts
It would appear to be oh so easy to make judgments on others whilst sitting in our own comfy chair.
The original poster states "... when someone in front of you is downing". Have you actually read the reports on this case?
When the CSOs arrived on the scene there was NO SIGN of the boy.
None of us were there; apart from limited information reported in the press, we don't know the conditions at the time or the confusion that must have existed.
It's easy to think that if we SAW someone downing in front of you then you would try to do something. Whether you ACTUALLY would do so remains to be seen. As to whether you would try to do something when someone tells you that someone who you can't see, who was last seen (by the time you got there) some minutes ago, is less obvious.
0 (0)
