Prats of The Week

It is a Monday morning, a tad grey and gloomy, what better time than to award my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award?

This week it goes to Sainsbury's.

You may recall that a little over a week ago Sainsbury's were featured on this site (somewhat off message) for totally screwing up a delivery of groceries. Needless to say they further screwed the order up by failing to deliver at the agreed time on Friday (the third failed attempt by them), citing some cock and bull story that the driver had changed his route and ignored instructions.

The groceries, after another email was sent to the Justin King the CEO, eventually arrived some 3.5 hours late that day. Needless to say Sainsbury's were not finished digging their own grave, on Monday they then attempted to make another delivery of the same order.

A truly spectacular and stellar performance most certainly worthy of an award, but not this one.
No, Sainsbury's are not being awarded "Prats of The Week" for their failure to deliver groceries, but for something else.

It seems that Sainsbury's has been overcome by a bout of political correctness and spinelessness, as it has decied to allow Muslim checkout operators to refuse to handle customers' alcohol purchases on religious grounds. Other members of staff have to be called over to scan in wine and beer for them at the till.

Not only are Sainsbury's kowtowing to Muslims who object to handling drink, but they are also kowtowing to those Muslims who won't touch the morning after pill. Sainsbury's is allowing its Muslim pharmacists to refuse to sell the morning-after pill to customers. Seemingly a Sainsbury's pharmacist, named Ahmed, declined to provide the pill to a female reporter posing as a customer. A colleague explained to her that Ahmed did not sell the pill for "ethical reasons".

Here's why this excuse of ethics is bollocks:

• People, when joining Sainsbury's, know full well what it sells



• Employees are expected to sell products without fear or favour to customers, those that refuse to do so are clearly in breach of their terms of employment



• Those that disapprove of the products on sale should seek employment elsewhere



• The salaries paid to the "ethical" objectors are derived from the sales of drink, newspapers containing photos of boobs, pork and other "controversial" items. Why are the "ethical" objectors still happy to make money from the sale of "non ethical" products? Isn't that hypocritical?

Sainsbury's, in theory, should have had the brains and the guts to point that out to their "ethical" objectors; in other words they should have stood up to them.

Instead Sainsbury's has opted for the easy, cowardly route of kowtowing to bullies, religious zealots and bigots.

This country has no room for bigots, bullies or zealots. Those who don't like the system and way of life here have a number of choices:

1 Seek to change it through democratic means, by submitting their views and opinions to rigorous intellectual scrutiny and debate

2 Integrate

3 Leave

Three choices, that's far more than many people get in some religious theocracies!

As for Sainsbury's, by kowtowing in this spineless manner they have left themselves open to more demands and blackmail from zealots and bigots and have further divided society.

I trust they are very proud of themselves?

Sainsbury's, well deserving "Prats of The Week".

Feel free to write to the CEO of Sainsbury's, Justin King, at his email address justin.king@sainsburys.co.uk