Waitrose delivery driver

[MsMoorhead]

Kellie Jay-Keen reported by her Waitrose delivery driver!

The latter

What? You mean the carefully constructed story that so upset you didn't have an ageing lady in place of KJK? You REALLY only parsed the Waitrose employee?

Omg!

Yay! Women, speak not, even when spoken to!

Good to know. So when a man who is providing a service asks you a question, the best thing to do is deflect because otherwise you might be escalating.

Do you also think women who wear short skirts are asking for it or is it just talking we need to stop doing?

I'd love to know why my post was deleted.

To be clear, I imagined a completely imaginary scenario of what could happen if this male trans activist continues to work as a delivery driver. I used the example of a little old lady because little old ladies are women (which is relevant in the context of men encroaching on women's rights, and in the context of TRA misogyny) and because "little old" demonstrates that this hypothetical lady is amongst the most vulnerable of all women.

I was in no way suggesting that it will happen or is likely to happen.

My point is that once Waitrose are aware of his misogyny and aggression and entitlement (assuming we can trust KJKs account, which I believe we can) then Waitrose are putting themselves at massive risk by continuing to put this man in situations where he is alone with women. Waitrose have been given fair warning that this man is likely to be a greater risk to women than an average man who has never done anything concerning. Waitrose cannot be blamed if a formerly perfect employee has a breakdown one day and does something crazy. But when an employees behaviour starts raising red flags then the company are on notice and have to be very careful that they don't allow an unfortunate incident to occur that would have been prevented had they acted after the first event.

That was my point.

Have any actual women (the boring dinosaur vagina-y sort) ever EVER started a conversation with a stranger by saying "I'm a woman"? Normally I say hello, or I like your top, or isn't the weather mad today, or similar.

I'd love to know why my post was deleted.

FWR posters have been deleted for before now so it doesn't actually mean much. MN is risk averse for particular magic words in a complaint. tbf, aside from then you might want to avoid references to the top of large and high geographical features, hill walking, and even walking boots in some contexts.

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.

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...!

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.

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

sorry for random punctuation

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.)

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’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?

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.