Waitrose delivery driver

That you don't see that "I'll take my time" is threatening makes me think Discovereads that you are not a typical female. A man that wants to show he can do as he wishes because a woman is smaller and weaker than him is a threat.

Yes. Well. You wouldn't get it, would you.

Just asked dh

and i do appreciate that thats the kiss of death 😀

but he’s got no fucking idea about this thread…..so i said ‘if somone came to the house and you had a little chat about whatever and then you said…can you leave my property please…and they said ……I’ll take my time….Do you think thats an ..…of course I’ll leave….or an…..I’ll leave when i want and you can’t do anything about it’

its the latter apparently

It bloody well is (is that colourful language too much?)

"I'll empty these crates first" is fine, it shows that any loitering before leaving has a genuine purpose.

"I'll take my time" is deliberately antagonistic. It shows that he could see that his presence and behaviour was causing the customer distress, and that he was going to drag it out for its own sake.

Except your “interpretation” isn’t an interpretation at all it is a complete rewrite of the sentence to add in both elements of refusal and unpleasantness that simply were not there.

The statement “I’ll take my time” isn’t one of no unpleasantness. It is less than polite. But it isn’t a refusal and it is less unpleasant than your rewrite.

I may be a latecomer to posting on this thread but I most certainly have watched the video. Twice, in fact.

No, not "plain wrong" just a different interpretation than yours. I think plenty of people would agree with my interpretation rather than yours which ascribes no unpleasantness to the delivery driver's response.

If you were serving a customer on their property, and after a heated discussion they asked you to leave immediately.... would you? Or would you say "I'll take my time" and not leave immediately?

Anyone rational would agree that people working in customer service roles are there to do the job at hand. Not to engage in debate about contentious topics to the point of being asked to leave. It's not reasonable to interrogate customers about their politics, their beliefs, their religion etc etc.

Its an

i’ll leave when i want…you can’t make me

type reply

personally I’d absolutely tell someone who decided they should have a pop at me and said they’d leave in their own sweet time to fuck off

(Actually i might not 🤔 depending on my mood i might well go ‘yeah yeah yeah’ and shut the door in their face….kinda depends)

Do you think "I'll take my time" is an unequivocal agreement to leave as requested,

Yes. As it was said in plain English it means agreement to leave. Just that they’re not going to hurry.

“I’ll take my time” is not nearly the same as “no, I’ll leave when I want”. They are very different statements and to conflate the first with the second is just plain wrong.

I disagree that saying “I’ll take my time” in response to being told “get off my property” is threatening and intimidating. It’s at most impolite. Threat of what? That they’re going to leave calmly and without hurrying. Intimidation how? They’re saying they will comply with the order to leave.

But there’s a lot of exaggeration and embellishment going on, it’s really very strange.

What an excellent example on which to practise the suggestions in the pronouns are Rohypnol essay. It's extraordinary how such a small word can make such a big difference.

From the video KJ says

"I said please leave my property and he was like 'I'll take my time' and I said
quite forcefully with colourful language please get off my property now leave now"

Do you think "I'll take my time" is an unequivocal agreement to leave as requested, or is it a "no, I'll leave when I want" kind of reply?

When last I looked, my doorstep was part of my private property. As was my front garden and the path to my door step

well yeah,….

its still part of your property

No she did not refuse to leave.
I don’t even know what “usual entitled male pattern behaviour” is even referring to.

When someone asks you to leave their property and you answer “I’ll take my time” this is threatening and intimidating.

it implies the person “taking their time” feels entitled to be there, instead of leaving straight away.

very male behaviour actually.

When last I looked, my doorstep was part of my private property. As was my front garden and the path to my door step.

if a delivery driver acted in such a threatening way, asking inappropriate questions and refusing to leave my doorstep, I would be calling the supermarket to complain.

and I would cease to shop there.

I’m distracted by wondering why KJK still shops at Waitrose after all that poster thing, where the W=AHF billboard was taken down. Or was that a different supermarket?

Latecomers who have not watched the video are believing the misinformation that the delivery driver was in KJKs home and refused to leave the property. This did not happen. The driver was at all times outside her home on the doorstep. When KJK first told her to leave she said “I’ll take my time” and then promptly left. She did not refuse to leave. And this is what KJK said happened. We don’t even have the delivery drivers side of the story.

I ignored it because you most definitely did say the delivery driver or their lawyers could argue KJKs actions constituted harrassment.

I said the drivers case for harrassment was arguable which mirrors almost exactly the above and where you said “both are legally arguable positions”

Of course, it’s absolutely fine to come back and add that you also think it’s a monumentally stupid argument.

(Yes we know you did not say anything about the validity of the argument, but neither did I say that you had.)

sorry for random punctuation

KJK is absolutely tiny. Around 5 feet tall, I believe. She was in her own home alone with a strange (as in, unknown to her) man who, picked a fight and then when asked to leave, declined to do so. If that isn't threatening I don't know what is.

I'm not surprised she then told him to get the fuck off her property. I think I'd have called the police

Waitrose have behaved outrageously.

Another shop to cross off my list. I'll go back to Sainsburys.

Waitrose, are you watching? Women are your core customers. You've been very stupid. YOu allowed an employee to refuse to leave a customer's property and said employee acted in an intimidating manner ofn a customer's private property.

That sort of behaviour should be cause for disciplinary action, not ticking off a customer.

I'd love to know why my post was deleted

It caused anguish, real distress. It was gratuitous, graphic, transphobic, nasty, nasty.

But only because it wasn't understood as you wrote it. The translation wasn't didn't have any internal logic though. So who knows what was actually said the MNHQ.

But it caused distress...!

I posted a comment on this earlier, but it was brief as I was at work, and @Discovereads has ignored it.

For the record, I said nothing of the sort.

I said that if there were a tribunal system for grocery store customers (hint: there isn't) then the driver could have their lawyers argue this.

I made no comment at all about the validity of the arguement.

This wouldn't, in fairness, be the stupidest thing I've seen a lawyer argue. That probably belongs to the lawyer who argued that a paramedic was negligent in declaring a patient dead before checking their pulse, when the decapitated head was resting 6ft away from the body. Or the defence barrister who argued that, because the witness saw the head of the burgler through one window, and the fist with the brick through the adjacent one, then he couldn't be confident that the two were in fact connected.

But it is well up there.

It does seem that ignoring and cherry-picking is a feature of the TRA debating strategy, alas. And @Discovereads it better than most.