The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4534903.stm[/URL]
*shakes head*
This country.
*shakes head*
This country.
Page:
In a time where so much emphasis is on non-discrimination this is just plain stupid.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Sure, you hate businesses trying to make money out of people.
> And we all have our boundaries on what extent of profiteering we
> consider acceptable.
>
> But ripping into them for trying to stop someone's gran getting
> intimidated by chavs seems a little excessive.
If I believed even for one instant that the motivation was anything other than maximising profit, I'd have a bit more time for them. As is, it just strikes me as a good reason to keep non-purchasing kids out of the shops. If they're really interested in stopping someones gran get intimidated, lets see 'em pump some profits into the communities they've helped dismantle.
Personally, I dressed in black all the time when I was a kid. Lots of kids too; having an intimidating presence is one of the only ways a teenager gets to make his or her mark on the world. Yet not that many teens actually cause any problems apart from some vague, nebulous "Adults feel intimidated" kinda vibe. And that's the problem of the adult, not the teen.
> Sure, you hate businesses trying to make money out of people.
> And we all have our boundaries on what extent of profiteering we
> consider acceptable.
>
> But ripping into them for trying to stop someone's gran getting
> intimidated by chavs seems a little excessive.
If I believed even for one instant that the motivation was anything other than maximising profit, I'd have a bit more time for them. As is, it just strikes me as a good reason to keep non-purchasing kids out of the shops. If they're really interested in stopping someones gran get intimidated, lets see 'em pump some profits into the communities they've helped dismantle.
Personally, I dressed in black all the time when I was a kid. Lots of kids too; having an intimidating presence is one of the only ways a teenager gets to make his or her mark on the world. Yet not that many teens actually cause any problems apart from some vague, nebulous "Adults feel intimidated" kinda vibe. And that's the problem of the adult, not the teen.
Personally I dont hate businesses for trying to make money, it's what this world is about.
I am suspicious of a place of shopping that dictates clothing you may wear to spend your money on goods you choose and employs video surveillance to reward good consumers.
And it's a quick fix, public relations exercise.
Is anybody here dumb enough to think that teens will stop shoplifting or being bored by making them an article of clothing off?
I am suspicious of a place of shopping that dictates clothing you may wear to spend your money on goods you choose and employs video surveillance to reward good consumers.
And it's a quick fix, public relations exercise.
Is anybody here dumb enough to think that teens will stop shoplifting or being bored by making them an article of clothing off?
Light wrote:
> Absolutely; we want HAPPY CONSUMERS!!
Sure, you hate businesses trying to make money out of people.
And we all have our boundaries on what extent of profiteering we consider acceptable.
But ripping into them for trying to stop someone's gran getting intimidated by chavs seems a little excessive.
Apparantly you now can't drive into central london without going through a numberplate recognition camera.
And they're beginning to spread elsewhere too.
> Absolutely; we want HAPPY CONSUMERS!!
Sure, you hate businesses trying to make money out of people.
And we all have our boundaries on what extent of profiteering we consider acceptable.
But ripping into them for trying to stop someone's gran getting intimidated by chavs seems a little excessive.
Apparantly you now can't drive into central london without going through a numberplate recognition camera.
And they're beginning to spread elsewhere too.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> You MAY purchase threatening garments in sporting goods stores but
> not wear them
> You MAY purchase cigarettes at newsagents inside but not smoke them
> inside
>
> You may NOT wear garments that obscure your face from our video
> surveillance systems
> You may NOT swear
>
>
> And I suppose they MAY NOT try to create a place to shop where people
> don't feel intimidated?
Absolutely; we want HAPPY CONSUMERS!!
Would it interest anyone to know the following about Bluewater?
they tried to win Kent planners around when they were building their (Australian owned) monstrosity by showing us around during the various stages of construction. one thing they were in equal parts proud of & cagey about was the number plate recognition system they had which allows them to keep track of who and when enters the site. as staff aren't allowed to park there, any car entering more than 3 times a week has its records checked to see if its owned by a wage-slave, if so they are 'reminded' that if they drive in again they're sacked, but if just a shopoholic, you get all manner of 'valued customer' status and freebies. Think, this was the best part of 10 years when the IRA could still drive lorry loads of semtex into the heart of the city, when Gatsos and congestion charging were pipe-dreams, and yet a shopping centre had an air-strike compatible vehicle tracking system!
warning! - another planning related rant on the way - as even the banks that finance all of this have realised that they've killed town cenrtes with their american style malls, they've had the temerity to seek to have Bluewater classified as a "Town Centre" so they can cover the surrounding countryside in houses. you've got to admire their front
> Goatboy wrote:
> You MAY purchase threatening garments in sporting goods stores but
> not wear them
> You MAY purchase cigarettes at newsagents inside but not smoke them
> inside
>
> You may NOT wear garments that obscure your face from our video
> surveillance systems
> You may NOT swear
>
>
> And I suppose they MAY NOT try to create a place to shop where people
> don't feel intimidated?
Absolutely; we want HAPPY CONSUMERS!!
Would it interest anyone to know the following about Bluewater?
they tried to win Kent planners around when they were building their (Australian owned) monstrosity by showing us around during the various stages of construction. one thing they were in equal parts proud of & cagey about was the number plate recognition system they had which allows them to keep track of who and when enters the site. as staff aren't allowed to park there, any car entering more than 3 times a week has its records checked to see if its owned by a wage-slave, if so they are 'reminded' that if they drive in again they're sacked, but if just a shopoholic, you get all manner of 'valued customer' status and freebies. Think, this was the best part of 10 years when the IRA could still drive lorry loads of semtex into the heart of the city, when Gatsos and congestion charging were pipe-dreams, and yet a shopping centre had an air-strike compatible vehicle tracking system!
warning! - another planning related rant on the way - as even the banks that finance all of this have realised that they've killed town cenrtes with their american style malls, they've had the temerity to seek to have Bluewater classified as a "Town Centre" so they can cover the surrounding countryside in houses. you've got to admire their front
Goatboy wrote:
> You MAY purchase threatening garments in sporting goods stores but
> not wear them
> You MAY purchase cigarettes at newsagents inside but not smoke them
> inside
> You may NOT wear garments that obscure your face from our video
> surveillance systems
> You may NOT swear
And I suppose they MAY NOT try to create a place to shop where people don't feel intimidated?
Sure sell things, but only allow people to use them somewhere else, what hypocrites.
It didn't really wash when I tried that argument at the fireworks store. Mind you, the police eventually dropped the charges...
> You MAY purchase threatening garments in sporting goods stores but
> not wear them
> You MAY purchase cigarettes at newsagents inside but not smoke them
> inside
> You may NOT wear garments that obscure your face from our video
> surveillance systems
> You may NOT swear
And I suppose they MAY NOT try to create a place to shop where people don't feel intimidated?
Sure sell things, but only allow people to use them somewhere else, what hypocrites.
It didn't really wash when I tried that argument at the fireworks store. Mind you, the police eventually dropped the charges...
The same percentage who say they'll do it without doing it?
Gates is a philanthropist. His company most certainly is not.
Gates is a philanthropist. His company most certainly is not.
What percentage of owners of large companies would do something like that do you think?
I have no idea what you mean.
Bill Gates says he'll donate 90% of his wealth away to charity in his lifetime.
Kind of blurs the line between 'big beast' and 'charity' somewhat.
Kind of blurs the line between 'big beast' and 'charity' somewhat.
Page: