I'm sorry: Councillor apologises for Facebook post saying Costa staff "needed a good beating" (From Thisisdorset)

custos wrote:
If Councillor Chapman really believes that he can post 'privately' on Facebook or any other social media website I would question his suitability to hold a responsible position on the Council.

Donkey Oatty wrote:

custos wrote:
If Councillor Chapman really believes that he can post 'privately' on Facebook or any other social media website I would question his suitability to hold a responsible position on the Council.

And I believe that you haven't got your network settings correct...

mr commonsense wrote:
His apology is interesting and one has to ask the question would he have done it if his comments had not been published. This raises a serious point about the way we live to-day. It has become so easy to write and say things about people and organisations without giving serious thought as to the likely consequences should it become public. People in any form of public life as well as businesses need to very carefully when making comments as so often that can come back and kick you in the teeth, This Cllr has demonstrated that he has no idea of how damaging his remarks have been and to say now he didn't mean to say them beggars belief, because he did say them. Please resign and do the honourable thing, then we will think much better of you.

I'mavoter wrote:
The words mountain, and molehill come to mind.

I'mavoter wrote:
The words mountain, and molehill come to mind.

JONBOY47 wrote:
I think this goes to prove what poor quality most councillors are. Pity the idiot didn't have the guts or manners to go in to Costa and make his apology in person

scouer wrote:
freedom of speech he said it on his own facebook nothink 2 do with any 1 good on him

custos wrote:
If Councillor Chapman really believes that he can post 'privately' on Facebook or any other social media website I would question his suitability to hold a responsible position on the Council.

JackJohnson wrote:
This trusted pillar of the community does not appear to understand simple security and political subterfeuge, yet is allowed to deal with his constituents' personal and confidential information?

Without a doubt he should resign.

As for Costa staff, I've always found them to be polite and give very good service. Perhaps there was a queue he felt he shouldn't have to wait in.

nystrom86 wrote:
Read a lot of comments about this over the last two days. As a constituent of this councillor I would like to say that he is one of the best I have ever known and that most of the people calling for his resignation wouldn't be half as capable at doing his job - I know that they will say they wouldn't want to do it anyway but if we all took that view we would just be led by a bunch of dictators. I am disappointed that the Echo printed this "story" knowing that it was intended only for his friends and not for general circulation. Personally if that's front page news then it doesn't say much for local reporting.

Woodgate wrote:
This whole story and the numerous comments it has attracted are all underpinned by a common and regularly re-ocurring theme (that the Echo delights in reminding us) - WPBC has long been cursed with a selection of self serving Councillors whose conduct and decision making has very little to do with whats best for the town. Sadly most people who could do an infinitely better job have to work for a living

Redmic99 wrote:
This Tory councillor is just so typical of his ilk and just one of the reasons that we suffer such poor local government.

Bob Goulding wrote:

Redmic99 wrote:
This Tory councillor is just so typical of his ilk and just one of the reasons that we suffer such poor local government.

Andy Blackwood is not a Tory councillor. Do you reject his opinion out of hand as well?

Andy Blackwood wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

Redmic99 wrote: This Tory councillor is just so typical of his ilk and just one of the reasons that we suffer such poor local government.

Andy Blackwood is not a Tory councillor. Do you reject his opinion out of hand as well?

I would. ;-)

marabout wrote:
Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.

marabout wrote:
Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.

marabout wrote:
Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.

Andy Blackwood wrote:

Woodgate wrote:
This whole story and the numerous comments it has attracted are all underpinned by a common and regularly re-ocurring theme (that the Echo delights in reminding us) - WPBC has long been cursed with a selection of self serving Councillors whose conduct and decision making has very little to do with whats best for the town. Sadly most people who could do an infinitely better job have to work for a living

Many of us (including Peter Chapman) do work for a living. We choose to put ourselves up for election because we want to play a part in making the Borough a better place rather than just sitting back and moaning about things. There will undoubtedly be a large number of people out there who could do a better job. Sadly they choose not to put themselves forward - maybe because they know that, whatever decisions they make, they will be criticised? For me there is a distinction between decision making and conduct. In this case I think Cllr Chapman's conduct was extremely ill-judged but actually has very little to do with his ability to act as a representative for Preston. From time to time I criticise his decision making because we do not agree about politics. There have been other councillors recently whose conduct and decision making have been questionable. However I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. The majority of councillors conduct themselves with dignity and respect. It is always right and proper to question our decision making and we should be accountable to the public for the decisions we take. It's all too easy to lump everyone together and criticise "the council" whilst ignoring the fact that council decisions are rarely unanimous. We disagree amongst ourselves about lots of things but I am convinced that almost all councillors are trying to do what they perceive as "what's best for the town" rather than serving their own interests. But then I suppose I would say that wouldn't I?!

Woodgate wrote:

Andy Blackwood wrote:

Woodgate wrote:
This whole story and the numerous comments it has attracted are all underpinned by a common and regularly re-ocurring theme (that the Echo delights in reminding us) - WPBC has long been cursed with a selection of self serving Councillors whose conduct and decision making has very little to do with whats best for the town. Sadly most people who could do an infinitely better job have to work for a living

Many of us (including Peter Chapman) do work for a living. We choose to put ourselves up for election because we want to play a part in making the Borough a better place rather than just sitting back and moaning about things. There will undoubtedly be a large number of people out there who could do a better job. Sadly they choose not to put themselves forward - maybe because they know that, whatever decisions they make, they will be criticised? For me there is a distinction between decision making and conduct. In this case I think Cllr Chapman's conduct was extremely ill-judged but actually has very little to do with his ability to act as a representative for Preston. From time to time I criticise his decision making because we do not agree about politics. There have been other councillors recently whose conduct and decision making have been questionable. However I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. The majority of councillors conduct themselves with dignity and respect. It is always right and proper to question our decision making and we should be accountable to the public for the decisions we take. It's all too easy to lump everyone together and criticise "the council" whilst ignoring the fact that council decisions are rarely unanimous. We disagree amongst ourselves about lots of things but I am convinced that almost all councillors are trying to do what they perceive as "what's best for the town" rather than serving their own interests. But then I suppose I would say that wouldn't I?!

Cllr Blackwood - I accept that there are some good Cllrs who work hard to genuinely try to make a postive difference to the Borough (you may very well be one of them) but im confident that many will agree with me that WPBC has had and continues to be blighted by far more than its share of self serving members and officers whose approach to those that they are supposed to serve is superior and downright dismissive and whose motives are driven more by self interest and status. Of course I could be wrong, but when you take all the regular adverse publicity surrounding this lot and add it to the accelerating decline in the area, arising from lack of leadership and wider, commercial and cultural ambition, somehow I dont think so.

valhalla wrote:
It's hard to say what I find the most disturbing. A elected representative of the borough and his attitude to the low paid, ie that they deserve punishment for not serving him to his liking (ARROGANCE OR WHAT) or his attitude to women (THE **** NEED BEATING). This man represents you and your views. I wouldnt let him in my house much less a council chamber. If the Conservative group don't do anything we can but assume that he represents their view.

Woodgate wrote:

Andy Blackwood wrote:

Woodgate wrote:
This whole story and the numerous comments it has attracted are all underpinned by a common and regularly re-ocurring theme (that the Echo delights in reminding us) - WPBC has long been cursed with a selection of self serving Councillors whose conduct and decision making has very little to do with whats best for the town. Sadly most people who could do an infinitely better job have to work for a living

Many of us (including Peter Chapman) do work for a living. We choose to put ourselves up for election because we want to play a part in making the Borough a better place rather than just sitting back and moaning about things. There will undoubtedly be a large number of people out there who could do a better job. Sadly they choose not to put themselves forward - maybe because they know that, whatever decisions they make, they will be criticised? For me there is a distinction between decision making and conduct. In this case I think Cllr Chapman's conduct was extremely ill-judged but actually has very little to do with his ability to act as a representative for Preston. From time to time I criticise his decision making because we do not agree about politics. There have been other councillors recently whose conduct and decision making have been questionable. However I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. The majority of councillors conduct themselves with dignity and respect. It is always right and proper to question our decision making and we should be accountable to the public for the decisions we take. It's all too easy to lump everyone together and criticise "the council" whilst ignoring the fact that council decisions are rarely unanimous. We disagree amongst ourselves about lots of things but I am convinced that almost all councillors are trying to do what they perceive as "what's best for the town" rather than serving their own interests. But then I suppose I would say that wouldn't I?!

Cllr Blackwood - I accept that there are some good Cllrs who work hard to genuinely try to make a postive difference to the Borough (you may very well be one of them) but im confident that many will agree with me that WPBC has had and continues to be blighted by far more than its share of self serving members and officers whose approach to those that they are supposed to serve is superior and downright dismissive and whose motives are driven more by self interest and status. Of course I could be wrong, but when you take all the regular adverse publicity surrounding this lot and add it to the accelerating decline in the area, arising from lack of leadership and wider, commercial and cultural ambition, somehow I dont think so.

biggestoaf wrote:

Woodgate wrote:

Andy Blackwood wrote:

Woodgate wrote:
This whole story and the numerous comments it has attracted are all underpinned by a common and regularly re-ocurring theme (that the Echo delights in reminding us) - WPBC has long been cursed with a selection of self serving Councillors whose conduct and decision making has very little to do with whats best for the town. Sadly most people who could do an infinitely better job have to work for a living

Many of us (including Peter Chapman) do work for a living. We choose to put ourselves up for election because we want to play a part in making the Borough a better place rather than just sitting back and moaning about things. There will undoubtedly be a large number of people out there who could do a better job. Sadly they choose not to put themselves forward - maybe because they know that, whatever decisions they make, they will be criticised? For me there is a distinction between decision making and conduct. In this case I think Cllr Chapman's conduct was extremely ill-judged but actually has very little to do with his ability to act as a representative for Preston. From time to time I criticise his decision making because we do not agree about politics. There have been other councillors recently whose conduct and decision making have been questionable. However I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. The majority of councillors conduct themselves with dignity and respect. It is always right and proper to question our decision making and we should be accountable to the public for the decisions we take. It's all too easy to lump everyone together and criticise "the council" whilst ignoring the fact that council decisions are rarely unanimous. We disagree amongst ourselves about lots of things but I am convinced that almost all councillors are trying to do what they perceive as "what's best for the town" rather than serving their own interests. But then I suppose I would say that wouldn't I?!

Cllr Blackwood - I accept that there are some good Cllrs who work hard to genuinely try to make a postive difference to the Borough (you may very well be one of them) but im confident that many will agree with me that WPBC has had and continues to be blighted by far more than its share of self serving members and officers whose approach to those that they are supposed to serve is superior and downright dismissive and whose motives are driven more by self interest and status. Of course I could be wrong, but when you take all the regular adverse publicity surrounding this lot and add it to the accelerating decline in the area, arising from lack of leadership and wider, commercial and cultural ambition, somehow I dont think so.

The biggest problem with "this lot" is that too many of them are Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. They're messing up the country and they're messing up the Borough.
*sits back and waits for the anti-Labour backlash*

biggestoaf wrote:
Fairly half-hearted attempt James. You know I'm going to come back with "and were they to blame for the collapse in the economies of all the other countries too?"

biggestoaf wrote:
Fairly half-hearted attempt James. You know I'm going to come back with "and were they to blame for the collapse in the economies of all the other countries too?"

JamesYoung wrote:

biggestoaf wrote:
Fairly half-hearted attempt James. You know I'm going to come back with "and were they to blame for the collapse in the economies of all the other countries too?"

Half hearted, my friend, because if you've survived the last four years and have still not figured out that most of our issues are home grown, i'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise.
Not all countries saw household debt triple in just 5 years.
When you understand the ramifications, and causes, of that, then we can talk about PFI, tax policy, debt ratios, etc.

biggestoaf wrote:
You see James - that's more like it! What about all the ****-ups at WPBC cj. Even you surely can't blame Labour for those?

biggestoaf wrote:
But have you noticed the disastrous local politicians are mostly Tories with one or two Lib Dems thrown in? Can't remember any problems caused by our Labour councillors.

biggestoaf wrote:
Hmm. And which Conservative/Republi

can/Banker wrote that? It's an interesting view but an obscured one. Whilst Gordon Brown changed the way the banks were regulated, this account fails to mention something of which you, James, will certainly be aware. At the time that this was happening, were David Cameron and George Osborne saying "No, don't lighten the regulation of the banks Gordon. You know what a dodgy lot the bankers are. They're bound to play fast and loose with everyone's money and we'll end up in a right mess."? Were they warning of the dangers of "light touch non-existent bank regulation."? Strangely no. They were criticising the Labour government for over-regulating the banks. They wanted the banks to have even more freedom to play fast and loose with our money. Criticise Gordon Brown by all means. Perhaps he should have grasped the chance to nationalise the banks. But never forget our present troubles would have been even worse if the Tories had been in power.

biggestoaf wrote:
Hmm. And which Conservative/Republi

can/Banker wrote that? It's an interesting view but an obscured one. Whilst Gordon Brown changed the way the banks were regulated, this account fails to mention something of which you, James, will certainly be aware. At the time that this was happening, were David Cameron and George Osborne saying "No, don't lighten the regulation of the banks Gordon. You know what a dodgy lot the bankers are. They're bound to play fast and loose with everyone's money and we'll end up in a right mess."? Were they warning of the dangers of "light touch non-existent bank regulation."? Strangely no. They were criticising the Labour government for over-regulating the banks. They wanted the banks to have even more freedom to play fast and loose with our money. Criticise Gordon Brown by all means. Perhaps he should have grasped the chance to nationalise the banks. But never forget our present troubles would have been even worse if the Tories had been in power.

woodsedge wrote:

biggestoaf wrote:
Hmm. And which Conservative/Republi


can/Banker wrote that? It's an interesting view but an obscured one. Whilst Gordon Brown changed the way the banks were regulated, this account fails to mention something of which you, James, will certainly be aware. At the time that this was happening, were David Cameron and George Osborne saying "No, don't lighten the regulation of the banks Gordon. You know what a dodgy lot the bankers are. They're bound to play fast and loose with everyone's money and we'll end up in a right mess."? Were they warning of the dangers of "light touch non-existent bank regulation."? Strangely no. They were criticising the Labour government for over-regulating the banks. They wanted the banks to have even more freedom to play fast and loose with our money. Criticise Gordon Brown by all means. Perhaps he should have grasped the chance to nationalise the banks. But never forget our present troubles would have been even worse if the Tories had been in power.

Quite agree, google searches will uncover all sorts of one sided dribble. What everyone forgets is that it wasn't teachers, fire fighters and council workers that crashed the economy whilst taking billions in bailouts and bonuses, it was the bankers. You know, the ones that Cameron continues to protect and who he believes it is unfair to cap their bonus at 2 years salary.

Bob Goulding wrote:

marabout wrote:
Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.

I'm sorry but making a throw-away remark in jest in what he thought was a private space could hardly be described as 'advocating violence to women'. That is a very different matter and, if it had been the case, I would have no hesitation in supporting your call for his resignation. However I'm afraid that, in this case, you are quite wrong and it does you no credit to make such unfounded accusations. In fact, I believe your comments are defamatory and could be considered actionable.

marabout wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

marabout wrote:
Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.

I'm sorry but making a throw-away remark in jest in what he thought was a private space could hardly be described as 'advocating violence to women'. That is a very different matter and, if it had been the case, I would have no hesitation in supporting your call for his resignation. However I'm afraid that, in this case, you are quite wrong and it does you no credit to make such unfounded accusations. In fact, I believe your comments are defamatory and could be considered actionable.

Making a throw away jest in a private space is most certainly advocating violence against women. Even if this man had not written these comments the very fact that he thought that those "idle **** need a good beating" suggests that this chap is a long way from the sort of man who should be representing us.

marabout wrote:
Recently a member of the Government called a police Officer a Pleb. As a result, he lost his job.


If the Prime Minister had put of his facebook page that "These idle **** need a good beating" would we accept that as a joke?

If a central government politician had put on their facebook page that "these idle **** need a good beating" would we consider that as a joke?

Then why is it ok for a local politician to put on his facebook page that "these idle **** need a good beating"

Councillor Ray Nowak is absolutely correct when he writes to this paper and states that

"Suggesting its OK to beat women is so wrong."

I have to agree with Mr Nowak.

Thankfully, Mr Chapman has apologised and has deleted his facebook page but as a result of this sordid episode Im afraid that my support for the Conservative party is waning.


Final comment.

marabout wrote:
Recently a member of the Government called a police Officer a Pleb. As a result, he lost his job.


If the Prime Minister had put of his facebook page that "These idle **** need a good beating" would we accept that as a joke?

If a central government politician had put on their facebook page that "these idle **** need a good beating" would we consider that as a joke?

Then why is it ok for a local politician to put on his facebook page that "these idle **** need a good beating"

Councillor Ray Nowak is absolutely correct when he writes to this paper and states that

"Suggesting its OK to beat women is so wrong."

I have to agree with Mr Nowak.

Thankfully, Mr Chapman has apologised and has deleted his facebook page but as a result of this sordid episode Im afraid that my support for the Conservative party is waning.


Final comment.

marabout wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

marabout wrote:
Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.

I'm sorry but making a throw-away remark in jest in what he thought was a private space could hardly be described as 'advocating violence to women'. That is a very different matter and, if it had been the case, I would have no hesitation in supporting your call for his resignation. However I'm afraid that, in this case, you are quite wrong and it does you no credit to make such unfounded accusations. In fact, I believe your comments are defamatory and could be considered actionable.

Making a throw away jest in a private space is most certainly advocating violence against women. Even if this man had not written these comments the very fact that he thought that those "idle **** need a good beating" suggests that this chap is a long way from the sort of man who should be representing us.

monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.

Bob Goulding wrote:

monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.

I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.

JamesYoung wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.

I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.

I'm not so sure they did, you know.

Bob Goulding wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.

I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.

I'm not so sure they did, you know.

You may be right. Perhaps thought control still exists as an objective of today's English Socialism.

cj07589 wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.

I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.

I'm not so sure they did, you know.

You may be right. Perhaps thought control still exists as an objective of today's English Socialism.

Which goes along way to explaining why complete morons keep on being voted in.
It ain't rocket if you feel strongly about a comment said privately in jest then don't vote for them.

Bob Goulding wrote:

cj07589 wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.

I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.

I'm not so sure they did, you know.

You may be right. Perhaps thought control still exists as an objective of today's English Socialism.

Which goes along way to explaining why complete morons keep on being voted in.
It ain't rocket if you feel strongly about a comment said privately in jest then don't vote for them.

Whilst I don't understand your first comment I do agree with your second. I would add, however, that if comments made in private (in jest or otherwise) remained private then it would not be an issue for the electorate. I think the ethics of those that were party to the disclosure of Cllr Chapman's private comments should called into question rather than those of Cllr Chapman himself. There is no doubt that their motives and the word honorable is not included.

Bob Goulding wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

cj07589 wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.

I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.

I'm not so sure they did, you know.

You may be right. Perhaps thought control still exists as an objective of today's English Socialism.

Which goes along way to explaining why complete morons keep on being voted in.
It ain't rocket if you feel strongly about a comment said privately in jest then don't vote for them.

Whilst I don't understand your first comment I do agree with your second. I would add, however, that if comments made in private (in jest or otherwise) remained private then it would not be an issue for the electorate. I think the ethics of those that were party to the disclosure of Cllr Chapman's private comments should called into question rather than those of Cllr Chapman himself. There is no doubt that their motives and the word honorable is not included.

...and neither is 'honourable'. Please update you website software Echo.

Bob Goulding wrote:

cj07589 wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:

Bob Goulding wrote:

monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.

I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.

I'm not so sure they did, you know.

You may be right. Perhaps thought control still exists as an objective of today's English Socialism.

Which goes along way to explaining why complete morons keep on being voted in.
It ain't rocket if you feel strongly about a comment said privately in jest then don't vote for them.

Whilst I don't understand your first comment I do agree with your second. I would add, however, that if comments made in private (in jest or otherwise) remained private then it would not be an issue for the electorate. I think the ethics of those that were party to the disclosure of Cllr Chapman's private comments should called into question rather than those of Cllr Chapman himself. There is no doubt that their motives and the word honorable is not included.

louise744 wrote:
I don't know why such a big deal has come out of this, so he writes a status saying Costa staff are useless. Freedom of speech and all that Jazz. no one can say they've never gone home to there wives/husbands etc and slagged off a member of staff. So doing it on Facebook to where he obviously thought he had his 'friends' on there, is so much different is it?? people need to take a joke!!

Bob Goulding wrote:

louise744 wrote:
I don't know why such a big deal has come out of this, so he writes a status saying Costa staff are useless. Freedom of speech and all that Jazz. no one can say they've never gone home to there wives/husbands etc and slagged off a member of staff. So doing it on Facebook to where he obviously thought he had his 'friends' on there, is so much different is it?? people need to take a joke!!

Exactly! I'd still like to know who conspired to make the comments public, however, because betrayal of trust is a big deal.