Waitrose delivery driver

He said he'd use the toilets with her daughter because he liked using them. She asked him to leave her property and he replied he'd take his time.

And you wouldn't have sworn at that point @respectmysex? I would have been frightened. KJ is tiny. The man was deliberately trying to intimidate her.

Just saw the previous post saying the driver was on the doorstep, not in the house. Still unpleasant, though.

Could be StandUpStraight. I hadn't thought of that.

I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't doxing anyone when it was right there in the publicly available clip for anyone to see. Possibly Posy should not have done that though.

Does she not say she used colourful language only after she politely asked the employee to leave her property & the employee refused to leave? I think she quotes the driver as saying, "I'll take my time," which I would hear as a direct insult & a power move, if I were in that position: it would make me afraid, to have a hostile male in my house who's refusing to leave - wouldn't any us feel threatened in that position?

Sometimes a quick change of tack & some unexpected 'bad' language can get rid of an unwanted male, when it would be impossible for a female to eject the male physically.

This situation wouldn't arise in call centre work: the employee is not in the customer's house, & the customer can always put the phone down (though I guess the employee can't always do that without breaking company rules). So it's not the same thing.

Also, isn't a householder allowed to use reasonable or proportionate force to get a trespasser off their property? If that doesn't include 'bad' language then it should.

From what I remember of the vid,, he started to challenge her on her political views, she told him to get off her property, and when he backchatted and dragged his heels she (presumably) told him to fuck off.

I understand swearing at service providers is not on. But a man is on her property, on her doorstep, challenging her on her own political views, and then displaying male dominance by telling her he will leave her property in his own good time.

Would a man answering the door be expected to keep his cool? If the delivery driver started challenging him on a slogan on his T-shirt? And gleefully telling him that he was going to be sharing changing rooms with his daughter whether he liked it or not. And then telling him that he was going to leave his property in his own good time?

Or would telling him to fuck off be considered somewhat mild under the circumstances?

I have to say that there is little that annoys me more than companies or their staff who try to silence complainants because the complainant is so angry and frustrated that they have sworn.

Obviously directly abusing staff using wear words is different to simply swearing.

IIRC Posies swearing started after he admonished her political views, gave his own deeply offensive views which directly infringe on the rights of the customer and maybe even refused to promoptly leave her house when told to do so. I would be seriously fucked off if a company suggested that such swearing is unreasonable.

Given the direction of the overzealous moderation on this board at the moment, I would put money on the concern being the protection of the identity of the Waitrose employee…

Wow, mn admin are a bit hypersensitive on this forum. Can't believe they deleted my post. Kellie says which branch it was in that clip and it hardly identifies me if you know that I shop in the same branch sometimes. For info, I don't live in the town that this shop is in.

Posie did say she used colourful language, which is sufficient for an employer to warn a customer of their future conduct with customer facing staff. You can disagree and and assert your views/boundaries without swearing at people.

If I were the manager tasked with investigating a complaint about an abusive customer, where the customer has sworn and the driver has not sworn, I'd have to side with the driver.

I deal with abusive customer complaints all the time unfortunately (call centre manager), and I have a duty of care to my staff. No matter how poor the attitude of my staff show on the phone, if the customer becomes abusive with their language, and my staff keep their cool, then the customer receives a warning. I always acknowledge the failings of my staff as well though and how we can improve, but a warning to the customer still has to be issued.

Just who do Waitrose think the majority of their customers are? Talk about an own goal.

ifIwerenotanandroid · Today 12:26

@GCRich Surely when the driver complained about Posie, Waitrose should've investigated what actually happened, before taking any action.

Without remembering precisely what Posie said in the vid I got the impression the Waitrose response was "we have this report, we don't accept abuse of our staff". There was no real reprimand and no punishment for Posie so they didn;t really need to go through a full process. Obviously they should now go through the full process as they are now aware of the other side of the incident. I presume that they didn't think there was another side as there was no complaint from Posie.

Maybe they should have investigated, but - I think - my view is that Waitrose's conduct can be judged pretty much solely based on what they do now that they are aware of Posie's side.

@GCRich Surely when the driver complained about Posie, Waitrose should've investigated what actually happened, before taking any action.

@BlackForestCake Come on, there's no need to misrepresent!

The staff member complained about Posie, because the staff member is an idiot.

Posie did not complain about the staff member, but she should have.

Waitrose have responded to the one complaint that they had, that is not unreasonable. By now they should be more aware of the situation from both sides, and they now need to prove that they care about women's rights by sacking an entitled, bullying, opinionated when he had no reason to be opinionated misogynist arsewipe driver.

What stood out for me in the video was Posie saying that when the delivery driver was asked to leave her property, the driver responded, "I'll take my time."

Can anyone comment on the legal position? I thought if you ask someone to leave your property & they don't immediately comply, that's trespass. I think that's a civil rather than criminal matter, though.

This is another step into wokeism: corporations policing the opinions their customers are allowed to have. It is very dangerous.

She must have been incensed.

On her own property, when she is paying for a service. To be questioned about her activities. That's bad enough.

But then to be bloody reprimanded?

Did they bother calling her, or asking what actually happened?

Because it sounds like they didn't.

Does that mean that delivery driver can take exception to every woman he delivers to? That any of their delivery drivers can? And their version will just be accepted without question?

Or is it only the version of people who say they are trans, and only then when they are talking about women?

For fuck's sake Waitrose, who do you think buys your bloody stuff?

Looks like Waitrose want to be inclusive to all except women.

Shame on them and very shortsighted.

But it's your call not to allow any stranger in your house, male or female? Even a Waitrose delivery driver because they are still a stranger. And sounds like the whole thing was in bad faith.

Easy for me to boycott, I shop at Lidl 😜

I would have been frightened, fair doos, Posie.

Waitrose what are you doing? Some of us wims spend frickin loads with you.

Maybe I am wrong to do so, but I have emailed Waitrose, linked the video, complained and said that misogynistic bullies like that driver should be sacked. I genuinely believe that part of what needs to be done - by those of us lucky enough to feel that we are able to - is to complain to companies when their staff are expressing hateful misogynistic and homophobic agendas, like this disgraceful TRA hate-monger and probable pervert was.

Manchester University Press got an email yesterday about one of their bigoted TRA authors.

Textbook aggressive male behaviour exhibited by the driver too. Using his male privilege to intimidate and let Posie know he'll do as he pleases.

When boundary transgression is often the only way women can spot a dangerous male why the fuck does trans ideology encourage transwomen to behave like this, transgressing boundaries all over the shop? Even if they are not dangerous, trans ideology encourages transwomen to act as if they are. It is so self defeating and has fuck all to do with dysphoria and transexuals living in peace. I think many trans people would find it abhorrent.

Who the fuck are Waitrose to be treating paying customers like this!

It does seem like it would be a fairly small chance of this particular scenario happening. The fact is that Kellie-Jay is a pretty well known name if you are aware of this debate, and it's not outside the bounds of possibility that someone would recognise the name and seek out a confrontation. Not that I'm saying that is what definitely happen, but you can see there could have been a possibility for it.

Well we only shop there for specific, expensive, vegan items I can get at a health food shop only slightly further away.

Surprised they'd want to piss off women tbh.

Waitrose, you really don't want to piss us off. I'm now boycotting, and writing to explain why.