We then exchanged some pleasantries, very politely, where I asked him to either refuse me entry or let me in.
I advised him that if he refused me entry, he was acting against the law and I would have to sue him..
I've just been challenged by a security guard at @LidlGB.
He informed me that a policy has been rolled out today that requires security to "politely challenge" customers without masks.
After informing him I was exempt, he asked me for my card.
I said I didn't need one and...
We then exchanged some pleasantries, very politely, where I asked him to either refuse me entry or let me in.
I advised him that if he refused me entry, he was acting against the law and I would have to sue him..
I reminded him I didn't need one and wouldn't be bringing a card or wearing a lanyard and told him that the next time I shopped I would present the legal documents..
I told him that I would request to see the store manager and ask for the name of the man or woman who was refusing me entry so...
I was then introduced to the store manager and we exchanged the same story.
She asked me politely to buy a lanyard or bring my card otherwise she could refuse me entry.
I reminded her she couldn't and told her that if she did..
She told me that was fine as she was protected by lidl insurance so I explained that I wouldn't be sueing lidl, I would be sueing her in her personal capacity.
At which point she exasperated that there was nothing she...
I said that was fine, we didnt need to go through it now and I didn't want to keep her at work.
I finished by letting them know that the next time I shop, somebody would have to make the decision to refuse..
After explaining I wouldn't wear a lanyard or bring an exemption card because I wasn't legally required to, I thanked them and said I'd see them next time.
To be continued...
(I only wanted some mayonnaise)
1. Gov guidance on face coverings
https://t.co/JUBLVB4jqk
2. Cabinet Office guidance
https://t.co/C0g3Qg4pJa
3. Complaint
https://t.co/6mm4oMuPyP
👍
More from India
#LIVE Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum in Association with LiveLaw is conducting a Webinar on the topic 'Attack On Love Marriages And Freedom Of Choice'.
#FreedomOfChoice
Watch the Webinar live at :
YouTube link: https://t.co/l074foe9RA
Facebook link:
https://t.co/d0m3h0Ut1w
Instagram Link:
Advocate Kajal Chandra begins the webinar and introduces the panelist Justice AP Shah, Delhi High Court’s Former Chief Justice. Advocate Gayatri Virmani introduces Human Rights Activist Jagmati Sangwan.
#FreedomOfChoice
The moderator Adv Chandra questions Justice Shah: Do the freedom of Religious ordinance of laws stand the test of Constitutionality and in your opinion, do they violate the fundamental right of liberty including the freedom to choose? #FreedomOfOpinion
Delhi High Court’s Former Chief Justice AP Shah: This topic cannot be discussed without referring to the Indian Constitution that guarantees Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity and protects dignity of individual and Unity and integrity of the Nation. #FreedomOfChoice
#FreedomOfChoice
Watch the Webinar live at :
YouTube link: https://t.co/l074foe9RA
Facebook link:
https://t.co/d0m3h0Ut1w
Instagram Link:
Advocate Kajal Chandra begins the webinar and introduces the panelist Justice AP Shah, Delhi High Court’s Former Chief Justice. Advocate Gayatri Virmani introduces Human Rights Activist Jagmati Sangwan.
#FreedomOfChoice
The moderator Adv Chandra questions Justice Shah: Do the freedom of Religious ordinance of laws stand the test of Constitutionality and in your opinion, do they violate the fundamental right of liberty including the freedom to choose? #FreedomOfOpinion
Delhi High Court’s Former Chief Justice AP Shah: This topic cannot be discussed without referring to the Indian Constitution that guarantees Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity and protects dignity of individual and Unity and integrity of the Nation. #FreedomOfChoice
You May Also Like
Joe Rogan's podcast is now is listened to 1.5+ billion times per year at around $50-100M/year revenue.
Independent and 100% owned by Joe, no networks, no middle men and a 100M+ people audience.
👏
https://t.co/RywAiBxA3s
Joe is the #1 / #2 podcast (depends per week) of all podcasts
120 million plays per month source https://t.co/k7L1LfDdcM
https://t.co/aGcYnVDpMu
Independent and 100% owned by Joe, no networks, no middle men and a 100M+ people audience.
👏
https://t.co/RywAiBxA3s
Joe is the #1 / #2 podcast (depends per week) of all podcasts
120 million plays per month source https://t.co/k7L1LfDdcM
https://t.co/aGcYnVDpMu
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.