WARNING - Avoid Shell

Pollycat

hollydays wrote: »

Come on, fess up.. What was the insult they insulted your 62 year old mother with..?

C'mon now, hollydays - get it right.

The OP's 62 year old mother is elderly.

Emz11 wrote: »

shell were rude to an elderly lady, didnt help that the worker barely spoke english.

TBH, regardless of what the 'worker' said to Emz11's mother, it can't be any more rude than referring to her as 'elderly'. :rotfl:

PoorCharleyBear

please please stop. I am crying with laughter at this.

(In reality I do work for Shell but know nothing about Trading Standards Act 1604, because we are not tested on our knowledge before we cross the hallowed portals to the company. But strangely they are hot on ethics compliance, complying with global laws and standards etc)

Pollycat

PoorCharleyBear wrote: »

(In reality I do work for Shell but know nothing about Trading Standards Act 1604, because we are not tested on our knowledge before we cross the hallowed portals to the company. But strangely they are hot on ethics compliance, complying with global laws and standards etc)

Now you see, PoorCharleyBear, I have great difficulty in believing you that Shell comply with global laws because Emz11 says this:

Emz11 wrote: »

shell act like they own the place when in fact they arent so as far as im concerned they couldnt give a stuff about any law so can be considered to have broken them.

they have broken the trading standards act by not displaying accurate payment information at the point of payment in a legally recognised manner. additionally they breach the health and safety law requiring workplaces to be safe by employing staff whose english is not satisfactory. they deliberately sell halal sandwiches to attract these workers.

And anyone who has read Emz11's posts just cannot help but be totally convinced by her masterful knowledge of the law and various acts. :rotfl:

dodger1

Emz11 wrote: »

not true, taxi drivers must accept cheques by law. i have a friend who owns a taxi firm who is forced to accept eleven cheques a day, despite preferring to deal in cash.

Your imaginary friend is an idiot but that's no real surprise based on the identity of the person who made the friend up.

moaninggit

oh well one good thing his mother is to old to breed again

Indie_Kid

Deleted_User wrote: »

I've worked in a national retailer once and the connection went down between the back off system and head office. We could still serve customers as the EPOS system automatically goes into offline mode when there was a connection failure. Only problem was we couldn't authorise cards with the connection being down so we had to make signs in Word, print out and put at the till.

Illegal? I doubt it.

Any company can refuse any payment method.

I think this has happened more than once as a customer. Unlike the OP, I went to the cash machine, withdrew money and didn't make a mountain out of a molehill.

prowla

daveyjp wrote: »

This thread proves the theory that 50% of drivers have below average intelligence.

Given the 19 posts all saying that the OP got it wrong, surely that number should be 5%.

Dizzy_Ditzy

Dear god, I can't believe this is still going :rotfl:

David_Aston

Not quite as funny as "The Clampets parking on the drive" post, but getting there!

Morglin

Emz11 wrote: »

not true, taxi drivers must accept cheques by law. i have a friend who owns a taxi firm who is forced to accept eleven cheques a day, despite preferring to deal in cash.

No, they don't and have never had to.

It's either book by CC in advance, online, or in the cab if it has a machine, or pay in cash.

No one, with any sense would accept an 'immediate transaction' cheque nowadays, simply because there are no longer guarantee cards for them.

Lin