Good news day

[vetran]

Black men arrested at Philadelphia Starbucks settle for $200K program | Daily Mail Online

Black men arrested at Starbucks settle with Philadelphia for a symbolic $1 each and the promise of a $200,000 program for young entrepreneurs - and both get an undisclosed sum from the coffee chain
Donte Robinson and Rashon Nelson reached a settlement with Philadelphia for $1 each and a promise from officials they will create a $200,000 youth program
The grant will be for young entrepreneurs who attend the city's public schools
The two men also reached an undisclosed financial settlement with Starbucks
Nelson and Robinson were arrested in April after the manger of a Rittenhouse Starbucks called police because they did not buy anything and would not leave

Congratulations gentlemen!

[SueEllen]

Hopefully Starbucks had to PAY!!

[original PM]

'I want to thank Donte and Rashon for their willingness to reconcile,' Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson said. 'I welcome the opportunity to begin a relationship with them to share learnings and experiences. And Starbucks will continue to take actions that stem from this incident to repair and reaffirm our values and vision for the kind of company we want to be.'

What a crock of tulip - he means not a single word of that, fookin lying wankshaft

[The Castle Cary Fairy]

My understanding is that the two lads were taking up table space in a branch of Starbucks, had not ordered anything. They were asked to leave, they refused and the Philly PD was summoned.

To me this raises a couple of questions, the answers to which change the complexion of this case somewhat.

1) The two lads hadn't ordered anything. Ok, but was there intention to order something? Perhaps they were waiting for friends to join them. In this case, the actions of Starbucks and the Philly PD are inexcusable.

2) Does Starbucks have a policy, informal or otherwise, of allowing members of the public remaining on their premises without having purchased anything? Unlikely but it's possible particularly on a quiet day to give the impression of a brisk trade to passing potential punters. If so, one cam extrapolate that had they been white, they would have been granted remain to leave. Again, the actions of Starbucks and the Philly PD are inexcusable.

There is, of course, another take on this in which I find myself having to play devil's advocate here, even though I commend the altruism of the two lads. What if neither 1) nor 2) are answerable in the affirmative? What if you were running a café and two individuals were taking up table space without any intention of ordering anything? You'd want them to leave. And if they did not leave you would call the police and you would expect them to be forceably removed.

Again, it would be good to see the full facts in the reporting of this story. That said, I read the Daily Mail version

[Old Greg]

Black men arrested at Philadelphia Starbucks settle for $200K program | Daily Mail Online



Congratulations gentlemen!

They'll be kicking themselves that they put the two sums in the wrong boxes.

[The Castle Cary Fairy]

On a similar topic, and similarly heartwarming, we have a young lad on our team who hails from Gambia.

Far from being a product of privilege, he was raised in a mudhut in a remote village far from the coastal tourist destinations.

Academically, though, he stood head and shoulders above his peers and he was known by the other children in the village as Bukoo which means "the book" in his native Mankinka language.

Recognising his talent, the village elders raised the funds to send him to the west to get an education and he's been beating an upward trajectory ever since.

I have to say, it's good to see.

[Lance]

My understanding is that the two lads were taking up table space in a branch of Starbucks, had not ordered anything. They were asked to leave, they refused and the Philly PD was summoned.

To me this raises a couple of questions, the answers to which change the complexion of this case somewhat.

1) The two lads hadn't ordered anything. Ok, but was there intention to order something? Perhaps they were waiting for friends to join them. In this case, the actions of Starbucks and the Philly PD are inexcusable.

2) Does Starbucks have a policy, informal or otherwise, of allowing members of the public remaining on their premises without having purchased anything? Unlikely but it's possible particularly on a quiet day to give the impression of a brisk trade to passing potential punters. If so, one cam extrapolate that had they been white, they would have been granted remain to leave. Again, the actions of Starbucks and the Philly PD are inexcusable.

There is, of course, another take on this in which I find myself having to play devil's advocate here, even though I commend the altruism of the two lads. What if neither 1) nor 2) are answerable in the affirmative? What if you were running a café and two individuals were taking up table space without any intention of ordering anything? You'd want them to leave. And if they did not leave you would call the police and you would expect them to be forceably removed.

Again, it would be good to see the full facts in the reporting of this story. That said, I read the Daily Mail version

Full facts will never come out. That’s why it was ‘settled’. That means we’ll only ever be able to speculate on the facts of the case.