Check-out desk woman and Saddam Hussein

Even in your own telling you don't come across well. Arogant, spolling for an arguement, bullish.

Maybe she could have handled you better, but if you think that berating the person on the till in a large chainstore for following instructions (do you think they have the power to decide on whether or not you can pay without your PIN) is acceptable behaviour then you are rude. You can't always get what you want.

If you wanted people to bite, then I've bitten, this reads as if you were in a foul mood and wanted to take it our on someone. It just goes to prove that the customer isn't always right.

(oh, and the N in PIN stands forr number. )

Sorry. I was being a little flippant by making such a tenuous connection with Iraq. I was by no means trying undermine the gravity of the situation in middle east.

Luther. Thank you for pointing out my error concerning PIN - apologies. It didn't cross my mnd but, I've corrected the piece accordingly.

As for arrogance - I was objecting to her arrogance and her patronising tone. No one should stand for that. Honestly, does that make me 'bullish'?

I think if you are going to start editing posts you should indicate the nature of the alteration at the foot of the article, not in the comments. In fact I am surprised that this is not a requirement of the BP house style. Perhaps Joanna could enlighten us?

That's a good shout Pete - here's a recent article that attempts to battle the "customer is always right" myth - working in a shop or a bar gives you a great insight into the workings of the human mind.

And Roshan, you really shouldn't carry your PIN round with you (when you think to), try picking a year or something that you'll remember.

@Clifford. Very good point. I think it's important that major alterations to the sense of the article are noted - my preferred way to do it is to state what alteration has been made at the bottom of the post in italics.

However, I have not suggested that as a policy and what Roshan did was perfectly fine.

I will, however, suggest to all our bloggers that they record major changes in the post in future.

Many thanks.

Manners maketh a man - 'Manners' have faired in the media this very week. Furthermore I work with young people and (generally speaking) they have little conception of manners. Many don't know what they are, and most have no strong feelings as to what they see as 'bad manners'. However, they tend to see, when it's pointed out to them, that when everyone is polite and courteous it makes life so much more pleasant. So it's not just one segment of the population, shop assistants, who are ignorant, it's endemic of society as a whole. At what point did 'manners' go out of fashion?

Yes Paul, but just what started the process of people being selfish and the centre of their own universe? Thatcher? Leftie politics? Human rights? As for Roshan Doug's bloggs, I do think they are being taken too seriously, and the point of them is perhaps being missed. I think they make interesting and amusing reading if nothing else.

Lots of shop assistants have attitude problems, regardless of their race or religion, so I don't understand the relevance of you picking on the fact that she was a Muslim in a headscarf.

I hate the way some shop assistants call out "Next please" before they have even handed you your change. But it is never anything to do with their religious beliefs.

This piece could have been a valid, if cliched, tirade against snotty shop assistants. But instead it became a rant against Muslims. I guess they're an easy target these days.
-----
PS Richard Littlejohn is appearing at the Journalists Charity function, Villa Park, on May 9.

"Some Muslim women - like her -
avoid all - even the faintest - contact with men. Why they then take jobs that require dealing with the public on a face to face basis, I have no idea."

What would you prefer then Roshan, for hijab-wearing ladies to be kept at home and away from society?

Fine, her attitude wasn't professional, but I have also had cards returned with non-Muslim men and women not wanting any physical contact (unless there's something about bad breath I'm missing...)

Let's be honest, though - your connection between this girl and Islam is deliberate. Muslims are damned whether they integrate or not.

Waqar, Cards? Bad breath? I'm sorry I've lost the plot. What have these go to do with what Roshan was writing about? Or is this a private discussion between he and you? Please guys, put me out of my misery.

Joyce - I cannot speak for other Muslims who have issues with working with non-Muslims. If it was such a huge problem they should either sign on at the jobcentre or move to a Muslim country. Once you have chosen a career path you cannot dictate terms to your employer, but remain faithful to your contract. As an example, I am a secondary school teacher, and there are many pupils/classes I would rather not be within 10 miles of, but my job requires me to deliver the curriculum to them. I either leave or stay put and do the job I'm paid to do. As for veiled women, it is not even an Islamic requirement to cover one's face or even hair when dealing with young children, but you will appreciate that older kids reaching the stage of puberty do not really need 'facial expressions' to learn in a classroom. The focus should be on the information being studied, not the individual delivering it. It's what helps to create 'higher order thinking'.
Joe- this is no private discussion. Cards referred to PIN/bank cards (which Roshan was talking about) and bad breath was just a joke. Relax people...

You lot - sort it out! You're taking this blog far too seriously. my god! what next - a fatwa out on Roshan because he's objected to bad manners from an assistant who, in his words, just happened to be a muslim? I'd do the same and I'm no islamphobic...

Oh dear. I must say the response to this post is rather baffling…

Followers of my columns/blog posts will know that in the past I have written on various aspects of our society from the need to integrate all factions so that there is better communal cohesion, to the war against Iraq (which I am against!).

My muslim friends are amazed at the response that is still coming in. Even my Muslim girlfriend is a little started at the vitriolic nature of the comments. It has also surprised my Muslim students and muslim family friends.

No one I know personally – Muslim or otherwise – feels these personal attacks are justified or warranted.

As a writer I’m trying to open a debate about the composition and nature of our society and its elements.

I have written about my very enjoyable experience of working in a predominantly Muslim women’s academy and felt that girls – irrespective of their backgrounds (whether they’re Asians, white or black) – are essentially similar in terms of their aspirations, their dreams, their hopes and fears.

Sometime ago I wrote about my experience of working in a school in a socially volatile area and concluded that if we – as educationalists and critics – really want to tackle the disaffection of young Muslim boys we need to confront them about issues they want to discuss about belonging, religion and cultural identity. What they say might no be what we want to hear – but that’s what debate is all about. But we got to bear in mind that we can’t censor thoughts and expression because of political correctness. As long as people don’t advocate violence or hatred what they say should be permissible.

I also want to stress that I am passionate about giving everyone the right to choose and that also includes religion. Personally I am not very religious but I’m quite happy to go to a mosque, a sikh temple and a mandir – with family and friends – and, respectfully, say a prayer for people who are not as lucky as us to be living in a free country such as this where there are so many opportunities to do whatever you want and say what you please without being gagged.

Unlike some relgious people who won't bow down to any other god but their own, I see spituality as universal, something inherently part of Man. I do not allow religion to separate me from considering that otherness as a part of me.

Despite this I believe that so man atrocities are being committed under our very nose in the name of culture/religion. Some young Asian girls are forced to marry against their wishes, locked up in their own homes, denied the right to choose, taken to other countries – practically abducted. This defies human Rights legislations and yet hundreds of girls are denied protection. Our criminals in court have more rights than these girls who suffer in silence.

I have criticised aspects of my parents’ religion (Hinduism) and some Hindu (men and women) who argue (even today) for the right to practise self-emulation (suttee) which the British quite rightly banned during the Raj.

I have criticised Christmas and Easter which have become nothing more than a spree of commercial hedonism.

But, on the other hand, there are wonderful aspects I like about Asian culture. I like the phrase ‘Allah ke marriz’ (it’s God’s wish) stated at funerals or greetings such as ‘salaam lakum’ and the Sikhs’ ‘sasari akal’ – both recognising the importance of God.

However I am against the veil because I think it makes people feel uncomfortable when they can’t see the person their talking to especially when the veiled woman is a doctor, a nurse, a teacher… I think Jack Straw was right we should raise these questions for debate if we are to have a truly cohesive society….

I am in favour of immigration controls because I think any government policy that allows easy access people from abroad will inevitably cause resentment amongst the British people. This is visible already in some parts of our country.

Honestly, I was not attacking the muslim woman at the check-out desk – merely objecting to her condescending, patronising tone. What aggravated the situation was the fact that she threw my card on the counter without handing it to me. I just thought that was rude and stated so….

My comment about Iraq is of course facetious and acts as a sort of a hook to pin this post. It’s what columnists sometimes do to defuse the seriousness of a subject. It is by no means meant to undermine the gravity of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are several things going on here:

Rudeness of shop assistants - I had years of experience working in shops before I graduated and I have to say that, I have noticed that, in general, shop assistants have got ruder. When I worked in shops, every customer would get eye contact, a smile, a please and a thank you; but I think even my patience would have been tried by your ignorant attitude.

Card payment - How much shopping have you actually done in the past few years? Chip and PIN has been the standard card security policy in the vast majority of shops for a few years. You should have remembered your PIN. In any case, do you really think that a shop assistant would have the power to overrule the company's general security policy? If you were that concerned, you should have asked to speak to a manager, not taken it out on her.

Islamophobia - if you were 'merely objecting to her condescending tone', then why mention her race at all? I really don't think you do much shopping, I think shop assistants (maybe the youth in general?) are getting ruder, regardless of their religion! Why did the fact that the shop assistant was a Muslim woman annoy you in particular?

Muslim veil - in response to an earlier comment from Waqar 'you will appreciate that older kids reaching the stage of puberty do not really need 'facial expressions' to learn in a classroom. The focus should be on the information being studied, not the individual delivering it.' I'm afraid I disagree with this. I do think that facial expressions are vital in all 'face to face' communication, whether in an educational setting or outside.

Hi Waqar,

No I don't think the hijab would obstruct communication, merely anything that covers part or all of the facial features, such as the niqab, a mask, a motorcycle helmet, dark sunglasses or whatever.

Julia

No. I'm still reading the Post's blogs. There is a very big difference.
I think that is where my issue with your original post (bad manners aside!) starts and ends.
Is this your blog or the Post's, or both?
I realise you are probably making a reference to your article in your comment back to me, but I've moved on to the wider issue of newspapers and blogs.
Are they the newspaper's blogs, or "our" blogs. Surely the Post's blogging community refers to its readers, as well as its bloggers, so these are "our" blogs?
Yet this is quite different to how newspapers traditionally work - whether they like to think otherwise or not.
So, are you a personal blogger in this incidence, a Post blogger, "our" blogger - or a combination of all three?
Does your blog post reflect on the rest of the paper?
What should we expect from "our" paper, blogs and bloggers?
Lots of questions. The answers probably come with time as we're all on a steep learning curve - paper, bloggers, readers.
No-one, no matter how long they've been doing this kind of thing, has all the answers.
http://tinyurl.com/4768pu

Janson/Roshan,

Surely the point is that in the original posting, far from it appearing to be incidental that the girl is Muslim, the whole posting 'hangs' on it. The 'jokey' subtext is how easy it is for Islam to become part of some wider conflict.

Clearly from Roshan's most recent postings this was not actually his intention. But then what was he trying to say?

Roshan now claims: "Honestly, I was not attacking the muslim woman at the check-out desk – merely objecting to her condescending, patronising tone."

If this is the case, and the woman's religion was not a key issue in the posting, then why on earth write: "I'm also not too impressed with the fact that she throws the card on the desk and not hand it to me - it's a cultural thing apparently. Some Muslim women - like her - avoid all - even the faintest - contact with men."

I'm sorry, but there are a number of assumptions made here about the check out woman and her religion that are, at the very least contentious. And Roshan DOES imply that they relate to the fact she is Muslim.

Why could it not be, as a number of other posters have observed, that Roshan was in the wrong, and it was also him who was rude and over-stepped the mark? Was her response not actually understandable? How many of us might not have done the same? I for one found myself more and more sympathetic to her behaviour the more I read. Why did Roshan insist on interpreting her behaviour as necessarily influenced by her religion rather than seeing it as the perhaps justified actions of a put-upon shop assistant?

I'd ask Roshan (and others staunchly defending him here) to re-read his original posting and to try to ask themselves what impression it would give them, had they been unfamiliar with his wider world view. I have shown it to a number of friends, all of whom interpreted it as Islamophobic and very unpleasant.

Personally, I can't re-read the blog without interpreting the same disturbing meaning that I originally got and clearly, other people have read it in the same way. Roshan's general defence of liberal values and expressions of respect for various religions is all very well (although somehow reinforces the sense that the original posting did have some unintended subtext) but nothing he has said in his defence explains how he could have written something that (apparently) so misrepresents his own views.

Wow, what staggeringly bad writing. I'm guessing your deadline was coming up and you really, really couldn't think of anything, right?

While it's difficult to find one fundamental flaw to nail the overall rubishness to, the spurious connection between being the one person in the country not to have encountered chip-and-pin and the Iraq invasion would seem to be as good a place to start as any.

Leaving politics aside, the war wasn't a 'misunderstanding' in any sense, it was an invasion. It was planned in advance. It wasn't like the troops were just stood around waiting. The decision to put them there was one-sided, and made in Washington (where they don't have chip-and-pin for credit card transactions).

It seems pretty clear that head scarf proved to be the red rag to the bull, and the woman's actions were judged through a lens that decided that she was a certain type of Muslim. As for throwing the card, while certainly not exemplary behaviour, it seems it was a reaction to the bullying behaviour she was confronted with.

Roshan,

I think it's very important that you clear up an ambiguity in your piece - for your reputation and for the commenters.

Did the lady that dealt with you say she could not hand you back the card because of her faith, or did you assume it because she was Muslim and wearing a hijab?

It isn't clear from your post and I note that a number of comments make the assumption that you were assuming that was the reason for her actions.

Ruth - to continuously read the same blog, and encourage friends to do so also, whether it be because it is particularly bad (or good, for that matter) makes you sound incredibly sad. I repeat other respondents’ comments - get a life, a man, a dog, a stimulating job, anything but stop taking blogs so seriously love.