Video of Starbucks employee in UK branch, part 2

[bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg]

Setting up the continuation thread.

First thread at https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4801699-video-of-starbucks-employee-in-uk-branch

I'm not beetlejuice, there's no risk referring to my name. The reason I didn't say anything about other articles being intrusive was because I didn't see them. However, I don't believe that this story merits a deep dive into anyone's past.

Poor show by the Daily Mail, naming a suspect who has yet to be charged.

I thought some more about Starbucks ex-manager jumping into the conversation to "defend" the subordinate colleague. It's an example of white knighting, which is where person A and B are having a dispute and person C intervenes to make themselves look good. It's characterised by C talking for and over the person they claim to defend. It's patronising to the "defended" person and bullies the other person. When men use it to "defend" a woman, it infantilises her and is a feature of so-called "benevolent" patriarchy. Starbucks ex-manager, for all his assertion that his former colleague doesn't identify as a lady, knew that she is female and white knighted her accordingly.

Vanessa consented to being interviewed and is a witness to an alleged crime. Starbucks ex-manager didn't consent to being interviewed and is the prime suspect of an alleged crime. There's a huge difference between the two.

Really good points
@bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg

Interesting. I hadn’t heard of white knighting but I can see how it can drive a wedge and escalate things that didn’t even exist.

Of course we don’t know everything yet but the intervention didn’t even seem called for. B and C weren’t in a big dispute if customer had a moan about the no cash policy but paid by card anyway. There was no ‘transphobia’ at that stage, just the customer and the subordinate colleague interacting.

I wasn’t comfortable about all the personal life and past stuff being brought up. Anything beyond Luna’s employment at Starbucks and trans activism doesn’t feel ok.

The TRAs have aggressively and relentlessly destroyed the reputation, privacy, and employment of many alleged terfs but that doesn’t make it an ok thing to do

Vanessa consented to being interviewed and is a witness to an alleged crime. Starbucks ex-manager didn't consent to being interviewed and is the prime suspect of an alleged crime. There's a huge difference between the two.

Not true.

The DM has written 5 articles on this story.

The first article where Vanessa was named (the third) stated she was on holiday and the copy was filled with comments from her (and partners) FB page plus comments from family/friends the DM had spoken to. She had not been interviewed or given consent.

It was only the fourth article naming here where she was interviewed directly and thus consented.

I'm not an advocate of this type of "journalism" but I do think it's important to point out the inconsistency of reactions here.

The TRAs have aggressively and relentlessly destroyed the reputation, privacy, and employment of many alleged terfs but that doesn’t make it an ok thing to do

And used the press to do so. I'm afraid I just don't care that the DM has done a hit piece on this individual it is effectively a taste of their own medicine which they no doubt thought they would never have to taste. As for it interfering with justice it doesn't seem to when hit pieces are done on other activists, nor make them victims in the eyes of the public.

Link to third article for reference.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12064209/Woman-accused-transphobic-Starbucks-worker-insists-shed-used-word-lady.html

nilsmousehammer · Today 07:30
Cherryblossoms85 · Yesterday 21:32

What gets to me is that "look what you made me do" seems to be viewed by TRAs as a completely acceptable excuse for violence. When did we start all this moral relativism about hurting people?
**
It isn't a societal thing, it's a small group amplified on social media to the point and frequency where it seems like a lot of people - but the whole inability to take responsibility for actions, to blame everything on someone else's failure to keep you happy, and 'making you' have to get abusive and violent?
**
It's a behaviour seen in children with difficulties, and adults of the kind that Lundy Bancroft writes books about. What we have is that a group of them have social media to prop each other up and reassure each other that it's normal and acceptable as opposed to entirely dysfunctional, symptomatic of distorted thinking, and can, as in this case, lead to you being arrested.

This was posted at the end of the last thread. Lots of posters are saying similar’ish things, but our teens and young people are being badly let down by the actual adults in the room.

Adults who ought to know better but for a variety of reasons, economic, fetishisation, attention, virtue signalling, cynical marketing ploys, self validation, trying to ‘be kind and inclusive’ etc. are not helping the young navigate the perils of accepting themselves whilst becoming independent.

Over playing these more individualist reasons is how late modernity has swept away the markers of identity eg religion, locality, a vocation and replaced it with the capitalist dream that we are entitled to anything we want and that we are all special simply by being and this is what we end up with.

Kids clinging to an identity based on empty rhetoric. Getting angry when the identity turns out to be built on sand. I don’t like the comments criticising his parents or mocking him because we can all see how messed up he is but also that the adults around him (including Starbucks executives marketing diversity) have enabled him and paved the way to this situation.

I’m with you on this. It’s high time there was more in the way of consequences - the protests, the abuse, the attempts to silence and shame? TRAs have behaved with impunity for too long and I’m glad to see the tables turned. After the way he behaved, he deserves everything he gets (including, hopefully, a conviction).

If you are on Ravelry, it is called Highland Thistle Cowl by Mindy Reid. It’s a great pattern and an easy knit

heres a picture of mine

I am on Ravelry - thank you!

And tell us how the spats turn out. 😁

StarbucksKaren

Thanks....

Thank you for clarifying that timeline for me.

I will confess to being somewhat conflicted over the DM's handling of it. On the one hand, and this is the view that wins out, naming a suspect pre-charge is not on because people have a right to presumption of innocence and a fair trial. On the other hand, part of me is wanting to ask Starbucks ex-manager "so how do you like this naming and shaming cancel culture now that you are on the receiving end of it?"

I wonder if they called themself that name before JKR became such a massive transphobe?*

Anyway, the whole sorry episode has been a very hard lesson for them to learn. Hope they’ve learnt it.

*I know she’s not a transphobe.

@TrashyPanda 😍

On the other hand, part of me is wanting to ask Starbucks ex-manager "so how do you like this naming and shaming cancel culture now that you are on the receiving end of it?"

Given the propensity of TRA's to wear masks and reactions to being filmed whilst protesting suggestions they definitely don't want to experience the repercussions of their behaviour.

I'd also add to be pedantic that the Starbucks statement does not say Luna was fired. Just that they no longer work for the company.

The assumption that Starbucks "has done the right thing" is just that - an assumption.

According to Vanessa Luna grabbed their coat and left after manhandling her out of the shop and smashing the glass when slamming the door having done so.

It's possible that Luna considered this a resignation "letter".

Starbucks statement does not say [name redacted] was fired. Just that they no longer work for the company.

For legal reasons, it's rare for a company to describe a dismissal as such in a public statement. There's an outside chance that ex-manager got home and daahed off an email paraphrasable as "I quit" to 23.5 Degrees. It's more likely that 23.5 Degrees sent out a P45 accompanied by a note along the lines of "don't bother coming back".

I've wondered about the exact meaning of the statement from Starbucks too.

In my experience (and I've only worked for large companies with detailed and established employment policies) it takes time to sack an employee. The employer needs to follow their disciplinary policy (assess allegation and its severity (minor/gross misconduct), meet with employee, decision, possibly right of appeal) before terminating their employment. For a serious incident the employee might be suspended while the process is followed but is still employed at that time.

The speed at which this employee left employment suggests to me that resignation was likely. But as I said, that's based on my knowledge of how large organisations work, not shop franchises.

You can immediately dismiss for gross misconduct.

Accoding to the link this can be "things like theft, physical violence, gross negligence or serious insubordination".

Well as far as we know the lady did not get her money back - theft
Physical violence - well trying to grab the phone and smashing a window
gross negligence - I'm sure that's in there somewhere

https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/dismissals-on-capability-or-conduct-grounds

Given the information regarding Luna’s self posted in the article, perhaps Luna was on Luna’s last strike at work, and Luna knew when Luna saw Luna was being recorded that it was all over?

Vanessa Thomas and husband Mark Adrews have been on GB News.

They seem like a nice couple, Dan was putting words in their their mouths though. Couldn't see any spats.

I can't cope with the pronouns. These are not our crimes. These are not our actions. These are not our name-callings. These are not our assaults.

Vanessa, you were called a transphobic Karen when you were just trying to buy a coffee. I wouldn’t bother respecting the pronouns of someone who’d disrespected me so spectacularly.