Customer behaviour

[10000]

A very traditional outlook. Men can swear but women shouldn’t.

 

Why wouldn’t women swear, when they are forced to share the planet with men?

 

I did mention this used to occur on buses which are public transport and were also used by children under 11. If miners could curb their swearing in a public situation then why should people have to listen to a group of women 'F ing ' and 'C ing'.

 

I never said that women should not swear and to the best of my recollection men back then did not think that women should not swear. 

 

It all came down to time and place.

[brianusa]

Indeed. But what is "normalcy"? In my train room it's a nationalised railway performing a public service, but I suspect that is not the same everywhere

 

Alex

 

Certainly not over here where the nearest thing to nationalisation is Amtrak!  In the train room its perpetually in the thirties as Hornby trains of that vintage rattle around.  Green engines, choc and cream coaches, Cornish Riviera; lovely, and that is my 'normalcy'

 

Brian

[dpgibbons]

Reverting to the OP, I imagine that some customers unfairly blame it on the shop when they discover the low wholesale prices generally offered for secondhand model railway stuff.

[jjb1970]

I did mention this used to occur on buses which are public transport and were also used by children under 11. If miners could curb their swearing in a public situation then why should people have to listen to a group of women 'F ing ' and 'C ing'.

 

I never said that women should not swear and to the best of my recollection men back then did not think that women should not swear. 

 

It all came down to time and place.

 

There was a saying at sea that engine room language stays in the engine room. I'm no angel myself when it comes to language but I find gratuitous and habitual swearing to be a rather objectionable trait (regardless of who is doing the swearing). In some ways I actually have more time for those who swear everywhere than those who swear gratuitously most of the time but can switch it off in certain situations (the old cliché about would you say it in front of a vicar) as in the second case it demonstrates that people do understand that their language is inappropriate but generally go ahead and swear in front of children, on public transport, in shops etc.

[Fenman]

... Ethnic dress is another question from burquas to hoodies; if you object, it is useless as PC rules as a certain politician recently found out.

...

Surely all dress is “ethnic”, since we all have an ethnicity?

 

But I think what you mean is minority or religious or “other” types of dress? My objection to the dog-whistle intervention by the MP I think you’re referring to is that it seems to me it was intended to stoke base terrors. If he was really concerned about social interaction perhaps he should have started somewhere else?

 

An example: it is said the five most dangerous words in the English language are “what are you looking at?”. Being a bit neurotic, people wearing mirror sunglasses or head-covering motorcycle helmets make me feel uneasy. I can’t see their eyes, I don’t know if they’re looking at me when I’m talking to them, and they seem to be trying to hide their identity. That feels much more threatening to me than a woman who’s covered most of her face with cloth but whose eyes I can still see.

 

More personally, who is that fatuous windbag to tell me what I can or can’t wear? I don’t comment on his choice of clothing, so who is he to comment on mine or on what other citizens are choosing to wear?

 

Change always makes some uneasy. Back in the 60s I remember people complaining that some men had long hair: apparently you could no longer tell the difference between men and women. We seem to have survived that world-shattering change; doubtless we’ll survive a few women wearing religious clothing - whether nuns or Muslims.

 

Paul

[alastairq]

In response....I think the 'certain MP's' comments, whilst inflammatory to some, raise an issue of how society seems to accept certain types of discrimination, whilst abhorring others.

 

For example, discrimination against folk wearing motorcycle helmets, preventing them from entering certain premises?   How is it that there appears to be one societal rule for one sector, and another for others?

[Fenman]

...

For example, discrimination against folk wearing motorcycle helmets, preventing them from entering certain premises? How is it that there appears to be one societal rule for one sector, and another for others?

 

The 1970s Tom Robinson protest song “Glad to be Gay” contains the immortal sneering line: “the b.u.g.g.e.r.s are legal now: what more are they after?”.

 

It turns out that they were after equality. Nothing more, nothing less. Because, obvious though it may seem, you can’t have a bit of equality any more than you can be partly pregnant: you either have it or you don’t.

 

In that case, it was the same right to marry, adopt children, serve in the armed forces - and even the right for an unemployed couple to receive less benefits (the Thatcher state refused to recognise that gays could be a couple, so insisted on paying to a gay couple unemployment and housing benefits at the rate of 2x single people. So more money for the gays than the equivalent straights would have received. It was obviously absurd, but the “logic” of the government’s position had to be protected).

 

If I’m reading you right, you seem to suggest that some minorities are getting special treatment. I’m not aware of that, but anything which offends the principle that all citizens are equal seems to me to require a very strong justification. I’d feel that me “not approving” is not, generally, a strong justification.

 

Paul

Edited August 9, 2018 by Fenman

[chris p bacon]

It turns out that they were after equality. Nothing more, nothing less. Because, obvious though it may seem, you can’t have a bit of equality any more than you can be partly pregnant: you either have it or you don’t.

 

In that case, it was the same right to marry,

 

 

Very true, but it's now gone beyond equality.  With the right to marry as well as civil partnership  there are now more rights given to a gay individual than a heterosexual.   

 

 

Blimey . . We're a long way off the original post.

Edited August 9, 2018 by chris p bacon

[hayfield]

In response....I think the 'certain MP's' comments, whilst inflammatory to some, raise an issue of how society seems to accept certain types of discrimination, whilst abhorring others.

 

For example, discrimination against folk wearing motorcycle helmets, preventing them from entering certain premises?   How is it that there appears to be one societal rule for one sector, and another for others?

 

Discrimination sadly has always existed, still does despite some forms now being seen as antisocial, But we as society turn a blind eye to many forms in fear of being classified ourselves.

 

We all have likes and dislikes which in some cases may be seen by some as discriminating. 

[bike2steam]

I visited a model shop local to me that I pop in to two or three times a month.

 

I bought a few used items at a decent price. I enquired about selling or exchanging my midland Pullman and was told they no longer buy used items.

 

It turns out the lady behind the counter was subject to sexism at best (go and get the manager) and threats/ aggression at worst from people bringing in stock for valuation.

 

I think it is a sad reflection on society.

 

That's why when employing shop staff you take on those that can give, fairly, as good as they get, and not crumble under confrontation. And remind people, if yer cant take it, don't dish it out !!

Edited August 9, 2018 by bike2steam

[alastairq]

If I’m reading you right, you seem to suggest that some minorities are getting special treatment. I’m not aware of that, but anything which offends the principle that all citizens are equal seems to me to require a very strong justification. I’d feel that me “not approving” is not, generally, a strong justification.

 

Paul

 I wouldn't like to suggest that, but I can see where the 'impression' comes from.

 

Recently  [& local to me] a legal professional has stirred an evocative hornet's nest by pointing out an inequality which, on face [or, superficial] value, is ignored...that of the  treatment of a driver convicted of  drink/driving, who lives in a rural area...and one who lives in a metropolitan area? Both are dealt with in the same manner, by regulation. Yet the impact of a lost licence is far greater on the rural driver, than on the metropolitan driver. Mainly due to access to regular & frequent alternative transport......  I can see the point being raised, yet the poor fellow has been roundly shot down & dismissed. Nobody raised the issue that there is littler deterrent to drink/driving in a metropolitan area, as the sanction has little effect? Rather, the argument has been the exact opposite, of why should rural drivers suffer a lesser penalty? {Which they wouldn't, in reality.....the financial penalty would be far higher...and indeed, licence removal could, in the past, be subject to mitigation...even if successful, having 40 or 50 points on one's licence had a much farther-reaching effect on life.]

 

Too much superficiality in arguments......

 

edit..straying off topic, sorry.

Edited August 9, 2018 by alastairq

[hayfield]

If I’m reading you right, you seem to suggest that some minorities are getting special treatment. I’m not aware of that, but anything which offends the principle that all citizens are equal seems to me to require a very strong justification. I’d feel that me “not approving” is not, generally, a strong justification.

 

Paul

 

 

Paul

 

I think you will find that some citizens have always been treated differently, which in some cases has resulted with awful consequences.

 

On the other hand in some cases it is right that we treat some differently to others.

 

I must admit there are times I am glad I don't have to make the call, as it seems you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't

 

We live in a free society, but that does not mean we are free to do what we want regardless of its consequences

 

Then of course to discriminate is wrong, however we see positive discrimination as good, despite it doing what its designed to prevent

[Mike at C&M]

That's why when employing shop staff you take on those that can give, fairly, as good as they get, and not crumble under confrontation. And remind people, if yer cant take it, don't dish it out !!

That is an incredibly fine line to walk. There are many times when standing behind the counter you have to bite your lip, and curse silently to yourself.

[cromptonnut]

That is an incredibly fine line to walk. There are many times when standing behind the counter you have to bite your lip, and curse silently to yourself.

 

Definitely, but there's a definite art in being able to tell someone to go to hell in a way that they look forward to the journey.

 

I once had someone ranting and raving about a delay, whilst I found them an alternative that with one more change got them to their destination around 5 minutes later than their original plan.  As they left I wished them a good day, only for them to turn round and yell DONT TELL ME WHAT KIND OF DAY TO HAVE … there's no answer to that is there?

[Fenman]

Very true, but it's now gone beyond equality. With the right to marry as well as civil partnership there are now more rights given to a gay individual than a heterosexual.

 

 

Blimey . . We're a long way off the original post.

Ha! I agree with you on that one. But, of course, it’s only arisen because the state refused to offer equality in the first place. We still don’t seem to have learned that the slogan from apartheid South Africa and the apartheid southern US states - “separate but equal” - is a guarantee of inequality.

 

On your specific point, hasn’t a straight couple suing for the right to have a civil partnership just won their case? Quite right, I’d say - equality should work for everyone.

 

To an earlier poster, no, I’m not generally in favour of positive discrimination for exactly the reason you state. And in most cases it is rightly unlawful in the UK.

 

Paul

[Mark Saunders]

Ha! I agree with you on that one. But, of course, it’s only arisen because the state refused to offer equality in the first place. We still don’t seem to have learned that the slogan from apartheid South Africa and the apartheid southern US states - “separate but equal” - is a guarantee of inequality.

 

On your specific point, hasn’t a straight couple suing for the right to have a civil partnership just won their case? Quite right, I’d say - equality should work for everyone.

 

To an earlier poster, no, I’m not generally in favour of positive discrimination for exactly the reason you state. And in most cases it is rightly unlawful in the UK.

 

Paul

 

As is often misquoted from George Orwell

 

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

 

Mark Saunders

[alastairq]

Definitely, but there's a definite art in being able to tell someone to go to hell in a way that they look forward to the journey.

 

I once had someone ranting and raving about a delay, whilst I found them an alternative that with one more change got them to their destination around 5 minutes later than their original plan.  As they left I wished them a good day, only for them to turn round and yell DONT TELL ME WHAT KIND OF DAY TO HAVE … there's no answer to that is there?

it's that sort of scenario where I would be inclined to test for the wind direction, in the time honoured manner.....wet the middle finger, right hand...then raise said finger heavenwards? 

 

In the end, it boils down to whether all these are really 'worth the candle' as far as our own lives are concerned?

 

 

[Even the recent Windrush issue actually impacted my mother, wahayyy back in the 1970's.....when she found she could not apply for a new passport!  Of course, no-one was interested in the issue back then...or, even, knew about it]

[Big James]

A couple of memories that stick out from my time on the customer service desk. One was being told that they was refusing to be served by a man so I said “I was on the desk all day except for when it shut for my break and if they wanted to exchange it then come back tomorrow as I’m pretty sure the person running it was a women”. So they stomped off and come back the next day. To be served by my colleague who was a women.

 

The other was a iron that was brought back, the man in question was very unhappy. He spent half hour telling me exactly what he thought of me, our products, the manager etc and he had a receipt so he knew all his rights. When he had finished with his rant I pointed out that yes he did have a receipt so he was entitled to a refund but he had bought it from a rival so he couldn’t exchange it.

 

Working with the general public you need to have extra thick skin, a quick wit and a spine of iron or you’ll just get walked all over.

 

Big James

[jjb1970]

I am not sure whether to find it comical or tragic (or maybe it is a tromedy?) that in order to further women's rights and protect the right of women to choose how they want to live that it seems plenty of people support banning various forms of dress favoured by Muslim women. If they're forced to wear that dress then I think there is an argument to intervene on their behalf, the problem is most of the evidence I have seen personally indicates that they wear it out of free choice. If that's the case I don't see anybody else has any right to dictate to them that they're not allowed to wear it.

[alastairq]

I am not sure whether to find it comical or tragic (or maybe it is a tromedy?) that in order to further women's rights and protect the right of women to choose how they want to live that it seems plenty of people support banning various forms of dress favoured by Muslim women. If they're forced to wear that dress then I think there is an argument to intervene on their behalf, the problem is most of the evidence I have seen personally indicates that they wear it out of free choice. If that's the case I don't see anybody else has any right to dictate to them that they're not allowed to wear it.

Does the same go for woolly hats?

[hayfield]

I am not sure whether to find it comical or tragic (or maybe it is a tromedy?) that in order to further women's rights and protect the right of women to choose how they want to live that it seems plenty of people support banning various forms of dress favoured by Muslim women. If they're forced to wear that dress then I think there is an argument to intervene on their behalf, the problem is most of the evidence I have seen personally indicates that they wear it out of free choice. If that's the case I don't see anybody else has any right to dictate to them that they're not allowed to wear it.

 

 

When package holidays first came on the market, us holiday makers were warned that we should respect the laws and cultures of the country we were visiting and some things which were OK in the UK were frowned upon in other countries. The quote given to us was "When in Rome do as the Romans do"  Sadly we have not learned the lesson either on our travels or the way we have compromised within our own society.

 

The new watch word for the way in which we want our society to behave now is "inclusive" whether its gender, race or religion. This means being mindful of how our own actions affect others and of course others should be mindful of how their actions affect others, that does not mean you give, I take

[ikks]

Over 50 years ago I worked, as part of my training, as a teller at an agency of the CWS Bank, I was nervous(for ages), dealing with people and their money, it was a little bit scary(at 18!!), but what I did find, was that the majority of my customers were patient and supportive and came  back especially to see me, very,very rarely was there any confrontation and when there was, the senior guy working next to me would invariably come to my rescue.

I originally patronized a few very good model shops in Melbourne until I moved to country SA. They were friendly, helpful and full of good advice just like the ones I used in the UK..........this hobby should NEVER be about confrontation.

 

The real Plonkers need to look in a mirror!!

 

MIKE

[DJM Dave]

When i was with my previous company, and the year we introduced the Hymek and 9F in N gauge, i attended Warley show with the main stand, and a well known modeller and his dad came over, waited patiently while i dealt with other customers ahead in the queue, then asked me there and then to repair a locomotive he had purchased through a shop the previous week that was faulty.

 

When i explained we were at the show to talk and show new product and we never do repairs on the stand anyway, the nice father decided to raise his voice and F & B at me, swearing prolifically for about 2-3 minutes before calling me a 'see you next Tuesday' very loudly and walking round the other side of the stand to talk to George Smith, getting the same answer, and berating him in much the same way with the same language.

 

If you were there amongst that, may i add a belated apology that you had to hear one of your fellow modellers abuse like that in front of children and adults alike. 

 

He never returned the model to either us or the model shop as far as i am aware though.

What a gentleman. Some people eh? 

[kevinlms]

Sexist to request to see the manager???

 

Demanding to go get the manager is rude but hardly Sexist.

Do you want to speak to the manager, or the woman that knows what's going on!

 

Edited to make sense!

Edited August 9, 2018 by kevinlms

[hayfield]

Do you want to speak to the manager, or the woman that knows what's going on!

 

Edited to make sense!

 

How true that is !!,

 

On the other hand women managers can be equally as bad as their male counterparts. Inability to do their jobs seems to be where true equally between the sexes is alive and kicking.