Do not use sainsburys online for groceries!!!

sniggings

zenseeker wrote: »

The fact that the customer is disabled has NOTHING to do with the story. It's just added to sensationalize and further demonize the company for acting in a way I can see was considered correct, but perhaps a little OTT for the apparent language used.

how can it be "correct" and "OTT" it can't be both, the only language used what was reported in the DM was the word coloured, so how you can say that was OTT beats me, some black people find the word black offensive, in the USA many black poeple prefer the word coloured.

Without knowing all that was said or hearing the phone call, I think you should be careful before you agree something is "correct but OTT.

Kayalana99

It really all comes down to staff tho doesn't it? Two people could of orderd the same list for two differnt areas but each would of recieved differnt items - one personal shopper could of gone out of her way to find matching deals / cheaper meats etc where another staff personal shopper just chucks in whatevers closest...

I had a major blow up with tesco I had used a voucher that I wasn't supposed to have (although I didn't know that I had just been passed on a £10 off £50 shop or something e-voucher from a friend) and they took the voucher off fine but on delivery it showed full price, being my first online shop I actally said is that price with the voucher off? and she said I'm not sure but if you have any problems you can ring customer services so I rang them to check only to get an irate customer service person who basicly told me I was commiting fraud and that if I don't want my delivery to take it all back to store....

So I put phone down cried about it for abit (I cry when im stressed unf! ) and then realised how the hell was I going to get this back to store as I didn't have any bags!!! As stupid as it sounded I just didnt have anything to pack it in as they had come in trays so other then putting them straight back in the boot of the car then carrying it all in store ......

Eventually I rang back spoke to someone else half had a go orignally explaining that its not right but the guy instantly gave me a refund and a £10 voucher of good will no min spend required....

geordie_joe

Originally Posted by zenseeker
The fact that the customer is disabled has NOTHING to do with the story. It's just added to sensationalize and further demonize the company for acting in a way I can see was considered correct, but perhaps a little OTT for the apparent language used.

sniggings wrote: »

how can it be "correct" and "OTT" it can't be both,

The company considered the action to be correct but zenseeker thought it was a little OTT.

sniggings

geordie_joe wrote: »

Originally Posted by zenseeker
The fact that the customer is disabled has NOTHING to do with the story. It's just added to sensationalize and further demonize the company for acting in a way I can see was considered correct, but perhaps a little OTT for the apparent language used.



The company considered the action to be correct but zenseeker thought it was a little OTT.

S/he didn't say the comany considered the action correct, as we all know that to be the case from the report, s/he said s/he thought it was correct for the apparent language that was used but OTT.

As said how can something be correct but OTT, they were either wrong for banning the lady or not, if they were correct in banning her how can that be OTT.

anyway my point is how can zenseeker label some one a racist from what has been reported, as that is in effect what s/he is doing, before accusing someone or agreeing with the actions of Sainsburys I would think s/he would need to know a little more of what was said, because going from all the info we have, the only word the lady used was "coloured" yet they claim she has used other words in the past, yet they are not mentioned, seems to me these other words must have been even less offensive than the word coloured or she would have been banned eariler, yet she wasn't, so "coloured was the straw that did it!
Which leads me to think that the real reason she was banned was she had the gaul to argue with a stroppy customer service assisant, and when she said coloured the assistant jumped on that as a way to get rid of this pain in the neck.

To ban this lady, I would expect them to at least disclose what her other offensives were, even though they must have been less than the offence of saying "coloured" can they bring anyone forward to back up this claim? just seems to me a more likely account of the incident.

geordie_joe

sniggings wrote: »

S/he didn't say the comany considered the action correct, as we all know that to be the case from the report, s/he said s/he thought it was correct for the apparent language that was used but OTT.

No, can you not understand what you read? He/she said "demonize the company for acting in a way I can see was considered correct"

"I can see was considered correct" the person writing can see that whoever they are writing about considered it to be correct. If the person writing it had considered it to be correct they would have written that, as in "I considered it to be correct".

sniggings wrote: »

As said how can something be correct but OTT, they were either wrong for banning the lady or not, if they were correct in banning her how can that be OTT.

Nobody has said it WAS correct or it WAS OTT, they have said it was CONSIDERED correct by someone/company, but they THOUGHT it was perhaps OTT.

sniggings wrote: »

anyway my point is how can zenseeker label some one a racist from what has been reported, as that is in effect what s/he is doing,

You'll have to ask them that.

sniggings wrote: »

before accusing someone or agreeing with the actions of Sainsburys I would think s/he would need to know a little more of what was said, because going from all the info we have, the only word the lady used was "coloured" yet they claim she has used other words in the past, yet they are not mentioned, seems to me these other words must have been even less offensive than the word coloured or she would have been banned eariler, yet she wasn't,

sniggings wrote: »

so "coloured was the straw that did it!
Which leads me to think that the real reason she was banned was she had the gaul to argue with a stroppy customer service assisant, and when she said coloured the assistant jumped on that as a way to get rid of this pain in the neck.

That's exactly what I though too.

sniggings wrote: »

To ban this lady, I would expect them to at least disclose what her other offensives were, even though they must have been less than the offence of saying "coloured" can they bring anyone forward to back up this claim? just seems to me a more likely account of the incident.

Unfortunately they can ban anyone and don't have to give a reason, but I would have liked to see someone push them to produce more evidence etc.

Edwardia

Sainsbury's v Daily Mail..

Firstly, the Daily Mail does have a habit of sensationalising stories eg current one about end of Rachel Riley's marriage.

Secondly, DM didn't just go through Customer Services, they would go through Media office/PR company.

Sainsbury's would be very likely to have had a lawyer listen to any recordings of conversations with the pensioner before the media spokesperson/PR company person said anything to the DM.

Even then the DM would feel free to re-order anything in the statement to suit the story it wanted to present.

Thirdly, the DM story is sensationalising - but also sitting on the fence. On the one hand, it wants to portray the OAP as out of touch posh (Highgate, spending £80pw at Sainsbury's and calling the delivery driver a gentleman), imply she isn't a racist (or why mention a Kenyan carer) and someone we should feel sorry for (housebound OAP with osteoporosis).

In other words something in the story for every reader to get upset about. It worked because the story even ended up in Australia.

Personally I feel it's likely that Sainsbury's will have taken steps to ensure that they can back up the alleged three "aggressive" and "racial slur" incidents. Whether we think she deserves to be banned is up to us as individuals but we actually haven't got the full story.

sniggings

geordie_joe wrote: »

Unfortunately they can ban anyone and don't have to give a reason, but I would have liked to see someone push them to produce more evidence etc.

We will just have to disagree on it, I read the line as with the OP having missed out the word "IT" so it read to me that they were saying "I can see it was correct (what they have done) but maybe a bit OTT.

anyway

Yes i agree they can ban without a reason, and I would have expected them to issue a ban with a "no reason" given but in this case they have not done that, what they have done is accuse someone of a crime, racial abuse is a crime, I would want them to back up this with evidence.

I know if it were me I would not let this drop but I can understand why a 70 old women may do.

sniggings

Edwardia wrote: »

Sainsbury's v Daily Mail..

Firstly, the Daily Mail does have a habit of sensationalising stories eg current one about end of Rachel Riley's marriage.

Secondly, DM didn't just go through Customer Services, they would go through Media office/PR company.

Sainsbury's would be very likely to have had a lawyer listen to any recordings of conversations with the pensioner before the media spokesperson/PR company person said anything to the DM.

Even then the DM would feel free to re-order anything in the statement to suit the story it wanted to present.

Thirdly, the DM story is sensationalising - but also sitting on the fence. On the one hand, it wants to portray the OAP as out of touch posh (Highgate, spending £80pw at Sainsbury's and calling the delivery driver a gentleman), imply she isn't a racist (or why mention a Kenyan carer) and someone we should feel sorry for (housebound OAP with osteoporosis).

In other words something in the story for every reader to get upset about. It worked because the story even ended up in Australia.

Personally I feel it's likely that Sainsbury's will have taken steps to ensure that they can back up the alleged three "aggressive" and "racial slur" incidents. Whether we think she deserves to be banned is up to us as individuals but we actually haven't got the full story.

I doubt there is a recording, DM would have found out if there was and not have run the story.

By the sounds of it, the women rang her local store with her order, I doubt each local store takes recordings.

You read it that way, I read the £80 comment, as if they can treat someone paying £80 a week to them, what do they think of those of us only spending £20 a week.

It's a newspaper, they always say where the person is from, to draw anything from that is stretching it a bit.

The carer comment again I read as different to you, if this woman can ring a store 3 or 4 times and be racially abusive, how can she allow a black guy (the DM says Kenyan but you can have white Kenyans too) care for her.

ReginaII

Anyway....Sainsbury's are going to start price matching their subs soon. I work instore and husband is a delivery driver, so that's where the info comes from.

System

ReginaII wrote: »

Anyway....Sainsbury's are going to start price matching their subs soon. I work instore and husband is a delivery driver, so that's where the info comes from.

When??

They have lost customers because of this! I know colleagues that ordered a the bistro meal deal for £10 and one of the options was not there and the sub made the the cost of the meal to £18!!