# Lidl... the not so nice side.



## Drago (16 Sep 2014)

A good friend of mine has almost no vision and as a consequence has a guide dog. She's a proper guide dog, all properly trained, certified, and liveried with a harness which clearly identifies her as a guide dog. Just in case the casual observer should be completely thick my friend also wears his dark glasses and carries a white stick.

So imagine his surprise when he was ejected from Lidl at Weston Favell, Northampton, for bringing a dog into the store.

The unlawful disablist behaviour has been reported to the police. Unfortunately for the store this gent is also a local councillor, so in light of their unlawful behaviour they are going to have some explaining to do next time one of their various trading licences comes for review.

So next time you're eyeing the cheap cycling goodies in Lidl you might with to think of the way they treat disabled customers before deciding to buy.


----------



## Rooster1 (16 Sep 2014)

Oh dear


----------



## Beebo (16 Sep 2014)

I imagine that's due to an over zealous security guard, it isnt going to be standard policy.


----------



## Davidc (16 Sep 2014)

It'll be an individual at the store. I've seen a couple of assistance dogs in our local one.


----------



## Markymark (16 Sep 2014)

Poorly trained frontline staff, that is all. A simple request for the manager would no doubt have sorted it out.


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2014)

Yes, it was an individual.

Even more disturbing is head offices lack of action over the matter. My chum is posting their rather wet letters up on FB.

They're failing to apologise, and failing to explain what action will be taken against those responsible.


----------



## glenn forger (16 Sep 2014)

Some poor sod on £6 an hour made a mistake.


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2014)

Indeed they did, and head orifice are declining to apologise or explain what they intend to do to prevent a recurrence, which is perhaps more galling than the incident itself.

If I can get on a big pooter later I'll post the letters up.


----------



## Markymark (16 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Yes, it was an individual.
> 
> Even more disturbing is head offices lack of action over the matter. My chum is posting their rather wet letters up on FB.
> 
> They're failing to apologise, and failing to explain what action will be taken against those responsible.


I assume, when you say action, you mean someone mentioning to the staff that guide dogs are allowed and that's the end of the matter? I do hope you don't mean some sort of punishment?


----------



## growingvegetables (16 Sep 2014)

Basic rule of marketing relations #1 - p*** off one customer, and the bad news puts off 80 people.

Basic rule of marketing relations #2 - p*** off a CC customer, and the bad news puts off ??????? people.


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I assume, when you say action, you mean someone mentioning to the staff that guide dogs are allowed and that's the end of the matter? I do hope you don't mean some sort of punishment?



If it were me i would expect at least an assurance that the staff member responsible had been suitably educated. A bit of "Jesus H. Christ, were ever so sorry. Don't worry, we'll see to this never happens again" would not have gone amis, and would've killed any spread of ill feeling dead.

As an aside, why should someone who has broken the law not be punished? Even more so as a vulnerable member of society suffered degrading and humiliating treatment at their hands. Ignorance of the law is no defence in any realm of unlawful endeavour. I can't see that being a bit dense/thick/ignorant is any mitigation or defence.


----------



## Markymark (16 Sep 2014)

Yeah, lets get the police involved, that's a good use of their time. Maybe this poor sod who made a mistake should have his (?) salary deducted by a few days wages. Maybe put him on suspension for 2 weeks for an enquiry.

He made a mistake. Why didn't your friend ask for a manager as they were entitled to enter the shop or were they so mortified at someone saying no they couldn't possibly pluck up the courage to ask? 

Yes, they were wrong. On the list of things that go wrong, this is pretty minor and I'm sure would have been easily rectified. 

Appologies if this was done and the managers also refused entry, in which case I take it all back and agree entirely.


----------



## vickster (16 Sep 2014)

Do they not have a sign on the door allowing guide dogs - most shops do don't they? The individual should certainly be 'retrained'


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2014)

Very good Marky. Because it's only a blind person that's the victim we should let it go, approve of Lidl doing nothing. Let them break whatever law they want, because there's no harm done really if it's a blind person being humiliated.

So where do you draw the line? What laws do you think are worthy of enforcing? Which victims do you think we should stand up for? 

I'm not suggesting they go to prison or get the birch, they've broken to law and some kind of community resolution disposal leaves them without a criminal record, yet forces them to acknowledge they acted unlawfully.


----------



## Robeh (16 Sep 2014)

Cant see how you can tar every store with the same brush TBH.
A liitlle education to the store concened should do the trick.
My own experiance off Lidl has always been a positive one,and the staff are well trained and polite.
unlike some other big name supermarkets..................


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2014)

Head offices indifference and lack of action tars all the stores. They may not endorse such behaviour, but they are unwilling to apologise and take action when it does.

I've never had a problem at Lidl personally, but I've never tried to take a guide dog ro und one, so ive not been put in that position.


----------



## nickyboy (16 Sep 2014)

It is an unfortunate incident but suggesting that this is somehow a cultural issue in Lidl is going too far. They do not, as far I am aware, have a track record for this sort of thing. It was just some poorly educated, poorly trained minimum wage employee who got it wrong. Whilst it sounds HQ's response hasn't been as fulsome as one would like I wouldn't support the idea that this is anything other than a local issue that requires some training to resolve.


----------



## KneesUp (16 Sep 2014)

Lidl and Aldi pay rather above minimum wage I believe?


----------



## Saluki (16 Sep 2014)

Davidc said:


> It'll be an individual at the store. I've seen a couple of assistance dogs in our local one.


I was going to say the same. There are a whole bunch of blind folk use the Lidl that we go to. They have their assistance dogs. We also see, fairly regularly, an assistance dog for a lady in a wheelchair in Lidl too.

I think that it's a training problem with that member of staff. Shocking behaviour though. I would be writing a stiffly worded letter to the store manager and cc-ing it to the UK head office.


----------



## Profpointy (16 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Very good Marky. Because it's only a blind person that's the victim we should let it go, approve of Lidl doing nothing. Let them break whatever law they want, because there's no harm done really if it's a blind person being humiliated.
> 
> So where do you draw the line? What laws do you think are worthy of enforcing? Which victims do you think we should stand up for?
> 
> I'm not suggesting they go to prison or get the birch, they've broken to law and some kind of community resolution disposal leaves them without a criminal record, yet forces them to acknowledge they acted unlawfully.



"broken the law" , ffs !


----------



## Markymark (16 Sep 2014)

Not in the least. Not because its only a blind person. But a 'person' who could have so easily rectified the situation. Someone was told they couldn't allow dogs in. It's not like not allowing black people in, you can see if they weren't told exactly the rules how this mistake could happen. Not ideal, but as said above, some 16yo on minimum wage, trained for half a day and let loose can make this mistake

Sorry to push, but was the person so mortified they couldn't ask for a manger to clarify the situation?

I do agree that HO should man up and appologise though, that's not nice.


I spend a year at uni living with a blind girl who had a guide dog. She got frustrated with people talking loudly at her like she was an idiot. Crap liked this happened. People didn't know how to deal with her. She politely told them and got on with things perfectly happily. A simple - "Ask your manager and let them tell me" would have sufficed and I bet they woulnd;t have made the same mistake. To be punished is just ludicrous.


----------



## MisterStan (16 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Head offices indifference and *lack of action tars all the stores*. They may not endorse such behaviour, but they are unwilling to apologise and take action when it does.
> 
> I've never had a problem at Lidl personally, but I've never tried to take a guide dog ro und one, so ive not been put in that position.


Like RLJing tars all cyclists? 

Seriously, get over yourself.


----------



## JoeyB (16 Sep 2014)

They are probably refusing to make any comment or accept any blame until they have fully investigated internally. That would be my best guess anyway.


----------



## KneesUp (16 Sep 2014)

Profpointy said:


> "broken the law" , ffs !


Yes, they have broken the law.

The Equality Act 2010 states that blind and partially sighted people have the same right to services supplied by shops, banks, hotels, libraries, pubs, public transport, taxis and restaurants as everyone else.

I take it you don't think this law is 'proper' in some way or other?


----------



## nickyboy (16 Sep 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Yes, they have broken the law.
> 
> The Equality Act 2010 states that blind and partially sighted people have the same right to services supplied by shops, banks, hotels, libraries, pubs, public transport, taxis and restaurants as everyone else.
> 
> I take it you don't think this law is 'proper' in some way or other?



Bit of common sense needed here I think. If Lidl said that their policy was not to allow guide dogs in their stores then of course full force of the law etc etc.

But that's not the case. It's some poorly trained, low wage employee who got it wrong. What should happen here is Lidl issues some training directive to all its staff and invites man & dog to store for some free dog food and a bit of nice PR in the local paper.


----------



## Profpointy (16 Sep 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Yes, they have broken the law.
> 
> The Equality Act 2010 states that blind and partially sighted people have the same right to services supplied by shops, banks, hotels, libraries, pubs, public transport, taxis and restaurants as everyone else.
> 
> I take it you don't think this law is 'proper' in some way or other?



Doesn't say "must allow guide dogs" though does it? They could ban dogs and make other "reasonable provision" if they were so minded.

One guard has clearly goofed, as it is pretty inconceivable that Lidl has any such policy.

Putting up a shed without planning permission is possibly "breaking the law", but I'd not expect my neighbours to call the police, though I might quite rightly get a letter from the council.


----------



## Profpointy (16 Sep 2014)

Apologies in advance for a bit of "whataboutery", but do all the very righteous folks on this thread all have fully legal bikes - let's just say "pedal reflectors"?


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2014)

MisterStan said:


> Like RLJing tars all cyclists?
> 
> Seriously, get over yourself.


Get real. I'm not in charge of all cyclists. My actions only reflect upon myself.

Unlike me, Lidls head office is in charge of the entire organisation. Their actions reflect on the entire organisation, seeing as it is they that set the standards and enforce them... or not.

If you must use a simile you should at least use one appropriate to the comparison you are trying to make, otherwise you then look rather stupid when you punctuate it with "get over yourself". Seriously, think before you type.


----------



## Profpointy (16 Sep 2014)

User said:


> And what do you expect the police to do? Not all breaches of the Equality Act constitute a criminal offence and fall within the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. Most in fact fall within the civil justice system.
> 
> And if the gentleman concerned allowed his experience to directly influence decisions around trading licenses, then that potentially would be a display of bias and the basis for a claim if misconduct in a public office. He should properly declare an interest and recuse himself from any consideration of such matters.



Should probably call the police if he's misusing his powers..


----------



## Piemaster (16 Sep 2014)

Sports Direct has just been reported to have had a similar incident, and seems to have dealt very robustly with it. LINK


----------



## Markymark (16 Sep 2014)

Piemaster said:


> Sports Direct has just been reported to have had a similar incident, and seems to have dealt very robustly with it. LINK


Similar?? I hope ye jest.

One can be attributed to a mistake and poor training, one cannot.


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2014)

Fair Play to Sports Direct. I think the issue isn't so much that it took place, but Lidls disinterested attitude and the lack of an apology.


----------



## glenn forger (16 Sep 2014)

Jews, guide dogs, what's the difference?

PS You are mad.


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2014)

As well as mad, he can also read the minds of people he has never met and accurately establish what motivates their aberrant behaviour.


----------



## RebornBumbler (16 Sep 2014)

What's the _General Cycling_ connection ?


----------



## glenn forger (16 Sep 2014)

Good point, this should be in the section for frothy emails to head offices that include the phrases:

_Long-time customer

Shocked and dismayed

Disappointed

Jumped-up jobsworth worse than eleven Hitlers_


----------



## KneesUp (16 Sep 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Doesn't say "must allow guide dogs" though does it? They could ban dogs and make other "reasonable provision" if they were so minded.
> 
> One guard has clearly goofed, as it is pretty inconceivable that Lidl has any such policy.
> 
> Putting up a shed without planning permission is possibly "breaking the law", but I'd not expect my neighbours to call the police, though I might quite rightly get a letter from the council.


I didn't say anything about how the fact that a law has been broken ought to be dealt with. I was merely questioning your attitude in an earlier post which implied (and note I said 'implied' and not 'proved beyond reasonable doubt') that you thought that the law didn't matter.

It's clear that the law has been broken. I would concur that it hasn't been broken as a result of company policy and would also agree with the suggestion that it seems to have been broken by the idiot / person who wasn't listening at training that every large organisation seems to employ at some time.


----------



## Profpointy (16 Sep 2014)

I don't think qnyone here is defending the shop.

However, it would also require a bit of an effort to establish that banning guide dogs was discrimination according the act - especially as even the dog ban is highly unlikely to be lidl policy. i would think it could well be justified in some circumstqnces - though probably not here to be fair. But As far as I understand it, banning guide dogs is not in and of itself an offence.
And yet we have all thiw righteous indignation "calling the police" and what not.

I might ask, is there more to the story - or is it q pure co-incidence the victim juwt happened to be q councellor?


----------



## SpokeyDokey (16 Sep 2014)

I've never understood why guide dogs are allowed in food stores and other dogs aren't.

I love dogs but they are all equally grubby.


----------



## cyberknight (16 Sep 2014)

[QUOTE 3282959, member: 45"]Non-assistance dogs don't need to go into food stores, and are likely to be less well behaved.

Just wash your sprouts.[/QUOTE]
@Fnaar


----------



## SpokeyDokey (16 Sep 2014)

[QUOTE 3282959, member: 45"]Non-assistance dogs don't need to go into food stores, and are likely to be less well behaved.

Just wash your sprouts.[/QUOTE]

So are dogs that aren't guide dogs excluded on grounds of hygiene or behaviour?


----------



## Retribution03 (16 Sep 2014)

As has been said it's an isolated incident and gross isolated incident and whichever dick ejected him wants instant dismissal and given a book on shop policy.


----------



## Phixion (16 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> So next time you're eyeing the cheap cycling goodies in Lidl you might with to think of the way they treat disabled customers before deciding to buy.



Why would this have any impact on anyone looking to buy from another Lidl?


----------



## Bryony (16 Sep 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Lidl and Aldi pay rather above minimum wage I believe?


I know Aldi pay well, the starting wage for a shelf stacker or checkout operator is just over £8 an hour going up to £9 an hour!! I keep looking out for jobs there but nothing yet!! Not sure what Lidl pay though.


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Sep 2014)

One interesting element of escalation is a failure to deal with the original issue

It is so often the case that an apology, an explanation of what occurred and what has been doe to preventrecurrence is all thatthe original complainant was after.

Failure to take the few minutes to do this costs time, effort and often financially


----------



## Bryony (16 Sep 2014)

User13710 said:


> Our local Aldi is advertising £7.25 and £7.95 respectively.


It does seem to vary, when our local one advertised last year it was a starting wage of £8.23 but a friend of a friend applied at her local one and I think it was around £7.50 mark


----------



## sean8997 (16 Sep 2014)

whats this got to do with cycling?


----------



## snorri (16 Sep 2014)

sean8997 said:


> whats this got to do with cycling?


A bicycle is my normal mode of transport between my home and Lidl.


----------



## Cubist (16 Sep 2014)

Apparently some people find it necessary to wear Lidl cycle clothing.


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Sep 2014)

I may have missed it, but when did this happen?

I would imagine that it takes time for an investigation to take place before the head office will comment. Drago, I really cannot believe that your friend was so mortifyingly offended that he did not have the sense to ask for the manager. 

The Security guard made a mistake, he doesnt deserve to lose his job for it. He is not the only one who doesnt know the act and year which has been breached. Its a good job most of us are not Security guards, because we didnt know it either.

Bearing in mind we are only hearing one side of a story and even that is second hand. I do have sympathy with your friend but its all the melodramatics, I find hard to swallow.

Steve


----------



## Piemaster (16 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Similar?? I hope ye jest.
> 
> One can be attributed to a mistake and poor training, one cannot.



I was applying a little empathy, do you think the people involved in either instance will feel any different about their unjust treatment? 
*Similarities:*
Customer is ejected from store by security guard because they have a disability.
Customer is ejected from store by security guard because of their religion.

The effect is the same on people involved, regardless of the motivations of the security guards.

There was no intention to _compare_ assistance dogs and Jews, I posted in a rush on way to work and admit it may have been taken quite wrongly from the intent. I found the antisemitism against 2 boys particularly vile and the Sports Direct quick action praiseworthy.


----------



## Accy cyclist (17 Sep 2014)

On the subject of guide dogs could someone please tell me who picks their doo daahs up?


----------



## classic33 (17 Sep 2014)

The chances of being prevented from entering on religous grounds is less likely. But should it occur, it'll have a more immediate response.
Disability Discrimination has only really covered by law since 1996.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Sep 2014)

The Sports Direct article links to an interesting incident about breast feeding

Again controversial, but we used to have a friend who would play off it.

Breast feeding can be discreet and should not cause a problem, however she used to be flagrantly exhibitionist about it in an attempt to get someone to respond and then complain suggesting free products or services as compensation for the "offence caused"

She claimed that she had not paid for a restaurant meal for 6 months!

Always beware that there may be an agenda on the behalf of the complainant.

The store should always investigate before taking action for this reason


----------



## nickyboy (17 Sep 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> The Sports Direct article links to an interesting incident about breast feeding
> 
> Again controversial, but we used to have a friend who would play off it.
> 
> ...



I thought the same thing. The way the complainant handled this was unusual. Clearly knowing his rights the best way to deal with this was to ask to speak to someone in authority at the store, at which point it becomes a non-issue. However he chose not to and as such you have to question his motivation


----------



## User33236 (17 Sep 2014)

Accy cyclist said:


> On the subject of guide dogs could someone please tell me who picks their doo daahs up?



http://puppyintraining.com/who-picks-up-guide-dog-poo/


----------



## KneesUp (17 Sep 2014)

Accy cyclist said:


> On the subject of guide dogs could someone please tell me who picks their doo daahs up?


I believe they are trained to do their doo daahs in a specific place at home. I don't know what happens if they are caught short.

EDIT - should have read to the end of the thread before replying - see @User33236's reply above.


----------



## Profpointy (17 Sep 2014)

Piemaster said:


> I was applying a little empathy, do you think the people involved in either instance will feel any different about their unjust treatment?
> *Similarities:*
> Customer is ejected from store by security guard because they have a disability.
> Customer is ejected from store by security guard because of their religion.
> ...



Not what happened though so you're being disingenuous. Shop has no dogs policy - it's a food shop after all. Hey, for all I know they may be another law forbidding dogs in food shops, or at least a law that would lead you to that. But there's also a law insisting that you must make reasonable provision for disabled access. Now you've got two laws, or at least two rules in conflict so this chap on the ground has to decide on the fly - for which he should apparently be dismissed as some kind of Nazi colaborator

Just a thought though, how does this blind gentleman choose his shopping - Lidl is self-service is it not?
If someone's walking round with him, why does he need the dog as well?


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Sep 2014)

User33236 said:


> http://puppyintraining.com/who-picks-up-guide-dog-poo/



You have corrupted a childhood memory now!

I will never again be able to watch Sooty again without "Izzy - Wizzy, lets get busy" having a whole new meaning!


----------



## Cyclopathic (17 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Yes, it was an individual.
> 
> Even more disturbing is head offices lack of action over the matter. My chum is posting their rather wet letters up on FB.
> 
> They're failing to apologise, and failing to explain what action will be taken against those responsible.


It may be an issue of data protection. I'm not sure if they are allowed to say what has been done to whom except in the broadest terms. i.e. the matter is being dealt with.


----------



## Cold (17 Sep 2014)

I often see a blind guy in the Lidls across the road from us he stands just inside the shop and one of the staff come out and walk him round picking the things he needs.
I don't know if it's the local store being nice or company policy to help disabled people.


----------



## Cyclopathic (17 Sep 2014)

Profpointy said:


> *Doesn't say "must allow guide dogs" though does it?* They could ban dogs and make other "reasonable provision" if they were so minded.
> 
> One guard has clearly goofed, as it is pretty inconceivable that Lidl has any such policy.
> 
> Putting up a shed without planning permission is possibly "breaking the law", but I'd not expect my neighbours to call the police, though I might quite rightly get a letter from the council.


I don't know the wording of the law but surely the allowing of guide dogs is absolutely implicit in the terms of the law to anybody but a complete imbecile, cretin or thinknotwell.


----------



## Cyclopathic (17 Sep 2014)

Profpointy said:


> I don't think qnyone here is defending the shop.
> 
> However, it would also require a bit of an effort to establish that banning guide dogs was discrimination according the act - especially as even the dog ban is highly unlikely to be lidl policy. i would think it could well be justified in some circumstqnces - though probably not here to be fair. But As far as I understand it, banning guide dogs is not in and of itself an offence.
> And yet we have all thiw righteous indignation "calling the police" and what not.
> ...


You may think differently if or when you have the misfortune to be in this position.


----------



## Profpointy (17 Sep 2014)

Cyclopathic said:


> You may think differently if or when you have the misfortune to be in this position.



Hey I'm not advocting banning guide dogs. Just pointing out the the over-the-top righteous indignation call for criminal records and who knows what else.


----------



## Cuchilo (18 Sep 2014)

[QUOTE 3285312, member: 45"]So where are these letters?...[/QUOTE]
The dog ate them .


----------



## Hip Priest (18 Sep 2014)

Drago's pal isn't asking for the security guard to be sacked, he's asking for an apology from the company and an assurance that all staff will be reminded of the law with regards to assistance dogs. Fair enough I say.


----------



## Markymark (18 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> I'm not suggesting they go to prison or get the birch, they've broken to law and some kind of community resolution disposal leaves them without a criminal record, yet forces them to acknowledge they acted unlawfully.





Hip Priest said:


> Drago's pal isn't asking for the security guard to be sacked, he's asking for an apology from the company and an assurance that all staff will be reminded of the law with regards to assistance dogs. Fair enough I say.


Seems to want the guy punished rather than just 'reminded of the law' .


----------



## Hip Priest (18 Sep 2014)

Next time we see a video of a van driver cutting up a cyclist, I look forward to a load of people saying it was only a mistake, and that van drivers don't get paid much.


----------



## albion (18 Sep 2014)

A rather funny old story, no dots joined.
Was the person a regular or just errr browsing ?


----------



## Markymark (18 Sep 2014)

Hip Priest said:


> Next time we see a video of a van driver cutting up a cyclist, I look forward to a load of people saying it was only a mistake, and that van drivers don't get paid much.


Seriously???

I have asked 3 times but got no answer. Was the person so distraught they couldn't ask to see the manager to clarify the situation? This was an unfortunate episode that could so easily have been resolved with "Please can you get your supervisor as I am allowed in" 

To then suggest that what was said equates to being put in position from which people are killed/injured is ridiculous.


----------



## Hip Priest (18 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I have asked 3 times but got no answer. Was the person so distraught they couldn't ask to see the manager to clarify the situation?



Possibly. I don't know how I'd react if I was blind and someone tried to eject me from a store. Maybe I'd be calm and collected and ask for the manager, or maybe I'd get a bit flustered or upset and contact the firm by email when I got home. And if I did, I'd expect a full apology.


----------



## Markymark (18 Sep 2014)

Hip Priest said:


> Possibly. I don't know how I'd react if I was blind and someone tried to eject me from a store. Maybe I'd be calm and collected and ask for the manager, or maybe I'd get a bit flustered or upset and contact the firm by email when I got home. And if I did, I'd expect a full apology.


Nobody is denying an apology is due, more than the person who did it should not be punished harshly as it was most likely a mistake.

But again, equating this mistake to a mistake which puts people safety at serious risk is not cool.


----------



## Big A (18 Sep 2014)

I'll never buy anything from Lidl ever again as a result of this.




or not


----------



## CopperCyclist (17 Oct 2014)

Not just Lidl it would seem! 

Http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29652764


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Oct 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> Not just Lidl it would seem!
> 
> Http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29652764


 
Yeah but look at the size of it, it's more like an elephant. And as for its hi-visibility jacket...







GC


----------



## Beebo (17 Oct 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Yeah but look at the size of it, it's more like an elephant. And as for its hi-visibility jacket...
> 
> View attachment 59295
> 
> ...


 I'm not surprised, that thing would steal all the buns


----------



## Windassisted (17 Oct 2014)

In a decent store, I have seen the store management approach the visually impaired visitor and ask them if they would like to have any assistance to shop.


----------



## tadpole (17 Oct 2014)

Beebo said:


> I imagine that's due to an over zealous security guard, it isnt going to be standard policy.


Unlikely to be the case, Security staff are better trained than most shop staff.


----------



## Rooster1 (17 Oct 2014)

Poor lady, terrible treatment. Shocking


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Oct 2014)

[QUOTE 3333270, member: 45"]It's when they start addressing the dog that you should become concerned.[/QUOTE]


Not uncommon

I used to work with a blind colleague, and people approaching and trying to pet the dog was a real issue.

Worse was on a bus or in public places where people would come up talk to the dog, ignoring her totally


----------

