This was the post.
It wasn't up to her to police the situation in person and drag people into a heated argument in public.
I initially read it as a depersonalised reference to the man, until that poster then later clarified. To my mind it still referred do the man and not to the staff but in a depersonalised detached way.
The first post on the thread, I believe, referred to him as ‘the person’. So to me, this is depersonalised language for someone where the sex class of the person is known. It was long before I realised that male language (man, he/him) was being avoided. In fact, I hadn’t twigged why I was getting confused by the poster’s posts until Cailin pointed it out.
It was like this post from pages ago:
“I assume they used some choice language back to Miranda? I suppose they could get them for that but I doubt they'd be able to justify a full year for that alone.”
To my mind, this can be interpreted as the same depersonalised language but referencing him as ‘them’. ( the ‘they’ and ‘they’d’ is quite confusing.)
I am just explaining that because I had been doing this type of interpreting since the first post, the pattern of depersonalisation just continued to that post too. It was automatic in my mind, so the reference to ‘people’ in that context doesn’t necessarily mean that the poster intended it to be specifically for multiple people.
I was obviously wrong and it was clarified. But that is how it got twisted in my mind.