matt72178

其實叫拒放低身份證做底額會唔會構成違法? 如果拒連身份證都無就報警拉9 拒啦。

kaimui22

Ultraman:

亞姐wasn't 罵-ing the customer at all..if you pay attention to what she says, she's actually trying to "preach" rather than get angry or mad at the customer. Of course she might sound angry and loud..but everyone in Hk talks this way,...haha...I mean, if you caught someone stealing, would you be 溫柔 and soft-sounding? 亞姐 was most 不爽 about the fact that the lady didn't even try to explain herself or apologize. The lady who ate without paying didn't once say "Sorry". She just tried to leave and say "Oh, I have no money".

I don't think the 亞姐 was 單打 or rude to the customer at all..in fact, she was just a bit irritated and tried to tell this customer that what she was doing was wrong.

Regardless of the amount of food eaten without paying, she IS still stealing...and I guess 亞姐 weighed her options and figured it's not worth calling the police..but she can't just let the lady leave without apologizing either.

I think 亞姐 was very typical-HK c-lai sounding...she wasn't intentionally yelling or talking with an angry tone..it's just how people talk in HK.

angeldevil

原帖由 Ultraman 於 2008-4-6 01:15 發表
I can't hear the whole conversation well clearly. However, I have some thoughts as below:
1. Not sure if that customer was intended to eat free at the beginning or not (even she's very suspicious), or ...

I disagree with u 1st point only.

since u'd mentioned at ur point 4, the customer could've offer to leave behind something in return...

& she didn't do that. she talk back as if "bok dai mo" style.
& yes the staff's tone's bad. when I first watching the clip without knowing what really went on, I felt for the person being scrold @, too
but as I listen along, the staff's got the point.
the staff even said, "if u knew u have no $ & asked if u can pay later, I would probably say yes & I wouldn't be angry.."

ya... so, the fact that she didn't even suggest to leave something down & get it back when she pays back (to make it a fair trade) on the first hand, makes her suspicious...
& the fact that she didn't do that even when the staff's scrolding at her, makes her more suspicious PLUS, she never apologize.

just my 2 cents.

Catpiano

WHAT DID SHE EAT?? $13 ??  SO LITTLE ? $1.6 ja wor ..

My wife said last time she bought a lunch box from fast food ..  $7.x  .. she forgot to bring money ..  and the guy said OK wor .. lol

Littleprince

香港申領綜援係咪真係好難﹖我 feel very bad when somebody was so hungry and cannot even afford to eat a $13 noodle... government should do something...

你們都講得對﹐亞婆首先唔應該諗住博大霧食霸王餐﹐反而一早入去話明我好肚餓﹐可否請我食碗麵。。。當然比人拒絕的機會還是好大﹐只係如果剛巧有好心的客人在附近聽見﹐話唔定會請她呢。。。天氣甘凍捱肚餓會好慘架。。。好過呢邊D後生仔問人討錢去吸毒丫。。。我諗亞婆都係為左自尊唔想求人遮。。。

雖然呢位仁兄將呢件事放上網係 JUST FOR FUN﹐但我覺得某程度是否反影香港某階層的困境呢。。。

Ultraman

Not defending for that 亞婆 at all, which I do think she's not right anyways! (no matter she intended to eat free at the beginning, or not intended to pay later.)
However, if I were the 亞婆, I would think: "OK, then what do you want me to do?" I'm just being curious, 亞姐 just want to 罵 or vent or preach (in whatever tone) 亞婆 and planned to let her go at the end but not asking for money back? Then I think don't be silly la, would 亞婆 truly listen and not doing the same thing in the future if she used to do this trick?!
Another thought, even 亞姐 said that "if u knew u have no $ & asked if u can pay later, I would probably say yes & I wouldn't be angry..", I wonder is that true? Or just being 馬後砲? Seems like she just wanted to have more facts to point out 亞婆 was wrong. If that's really what she's thinking, then obviously she's 不爽 rather than concerning the money. Then why did she give 亞婆 any offer to get the case settled or at least get herself more 爽? For example, she can simply ask 亞婆 to apologize, or ask her to call any of her friend/relative to pay for her, or ask her to leave anything (even the plastic bag on hand, but definitely not her ID card, cuz it's illegal unless for police)...... Yet, she gave 亞婆 no way to go besides standing and listen to her words. Then at the end, watching 亞婆 to leave without a more constructive solution.

Maybe, HK people really live under stress and pressure, can't think and act rationally. Haha...

Littleprince

Ultraman:

或者亞姐覺得鬧左已經響某程度上讓亞婆 PAID BACK FOR WHAT SHE HAS DONE (食罷王餐)﹐好過就o甘由得她離開啦。。。

其實我都好想知一般來講﹐餐館對食霸王餐的人會點處理﹖譬如響加拿大﹐係咪會報警呢﹖如果個人食完霸王餐響後門走左你地會點做﹖有無開餐館的 LYK 可以發表一下﹖

kaimui22

ultraman : I think in terms of 原則, why should the waitress "ASK" for 亞婆 to apologize? No matter what standpoint you are in this situation, 亞婆 is 100% for sure. She ate and wanted to leave without paying. She KNEW she was wrong but she never even tried to apologize or even sound or look sorry. I think the waitress was right in lecturing 亞婆 because its obvious 亞婆 had no intentions of paying OR apologizing.

If I'm reading you right, you think the waitress should just let the 亞婆 go without lecturing her or telling her what's she has done is wrong since there is no conclusion or resolution. Am I right in understanding what you're written? Why didn't 亞婆 offer to leave down some collateral or try to call her relatives or friends? Why should the waitress have to think of all the solutions for the 亞婆 to get out of the situation?

Regardless of the price ($13HKD), the 亞婆 should have thought of the consequences before ordering and not paying. Why should the restaurant suffer a lost and then help the crook find a solution?

Of course, you can say the waitress is not 大方 but making such a bit commotion over this could actually scare other potential eat-and-run people. And even if she is not the boss, she is still responsible for watching out for the boss as to not let the restaurant suffer any losses.

as for saying that she could have asked to pay later, that is not called 馬後炮. 馬後炮 is something one does to cover their ass. In this case, the waitress has done nothing wrong in telling the woman she is wrong, so why does she have to say a 馬後炮 to cover her ass? The waitress did her job correctly in stopping the non-paying customer. . the only 馬後炮 i found in the video was the 亞婆 saying she was planning to come back and pay but not willing to leave any information or any collateral.

overall, the 亞婆 was not active at all in trying to reach a solution.

Ultraman

kaimui22:
Please excuse me to tell you that you have misinterpreted what I said.
I never think the 亞姐 (waitress) should let 亞婆 go without a price! But on the other hand, she shouldn't let her go that easily, just after listening the preaching! And that's what I said "the case is not well solved". You point is, which I think it's similar to case at court- A: show me your proof that I'm guilty. B: prove yourself that you're not guilty. That's always not one side's responsibility.
Back to this case, why there should only be the 亞婆 to find out options to get away, but not the 亞姐 to give options for 亞婆 to pick? It's like: "OK, I have no money to pay, please tell me what to do?" and "OK, since you have no money to pay, tell me what are you going to do?" Since the 亞婆 was suspected to eat free intentionally, I don't think she has any good idea to escape or solve the problem. But 亞姐 is working at the restaurant and seems like she is the one in charge besides the owner (no clue that if she is the owner but lied that she isn't), shouldn't her responsibility to solve problems? Moreover, how come she has the power to say: "if u knew u have no $ & asked if u can pay later, I would probably say yes & I wouldn't be angry.." If she has to report to her boss about this 亞婆 eat-and-run and may get scold from her boss, how dare she offer free meal to 亞婆 even 亞婆 ask her beforehand? Imply she won't report to her boss about offering free meals to customers or what? That sound ridiculous to me and that's why I commented her 馬後炮. (Note:   一般人指馬後炮就是「事後孔明」；也就是事前無能，事後才來吹毛求疵、吹牛吹噓、批評攻擊、幸災樂禍、說風涼話，甚至扯人後腿，這些都是放馬後炮的行為。  由「馬後炮」一詞，就延伸到社會上一些人常常不能洞察先機，不能在事先準備，不能做好安排，等到事後才來饒舌，才來怨您怪他，所以就被譏為「馬後炮」。-- from google search.)

And regarding for which side should bear (or bear more) the responsibility to solve the problem, I think it's the "控制權" is on the restaurant side but not the customer side. For example, the customer says: "May I leave my watch here and come back to pay you after?" The restaurant can say: "Nope, you have to pay right now!" Right? How can 亞婆 reads 亞姐's mind for what can please her and get the case solved? But it's simple and easy for 亞姐 to give out a fair option in order to solve the problem. For example, if she is the boss (that means she can do whatever she feels like) and what made her upset and angry is that 亞婆 didn't apologize officially, she can simply ask her for an apology (no money concern). Or if 亞姐 is not the boss and has to report to her boss about money loss, she should ask 亞婆 to pay back no matter what, or she's gonna to give out money from her own pocket. I think that's very easy to handle, but of course, whether 亞婆 has anything to leave down is another question.

Not being mean for the discussion though, just find the case interesting to share.

kaimui22

Ultraman:
Not wanting to argue with you..this is just my opinion on the whole issue. In terms of finding responsibility in trying to solve the problem, I still think the customer bears more of the responsibility. Why? Because there is no obligation for the waitress or the restaurant to solve these problems (stealing). There is also no obligation for the restaurant to allow customers to eat for free if they don't have money. HOWEVER, the customer has the obligation to PAY for whatever services or products they receive. Once they have entered the restaurant, decided to order and have consumed the product, they are then responsible to pay the full price! Yes it's true that the restaurant holds the ball in it's court because they can decide whether or not to call the police. But the 亞婆 also needs to be proactive in offering a solution AND apology. The 亞婆 didn't apologize and just stood there. She could also have offered to pay or whatever. She made no excuse for her actions and didn't appear 內疚 at all! In fact, i found the 亞婆's attitude to be a bit 理所當然...Why didn't she explain herself? why didn't she apologize?

If you have committed a crime, you need to be responsible for it. You shouldn't need to be waiting for the other party (the受害者) to offer a solution. both sides should be pro-active.