A meal out with a friend ended on an appalling note for a young woman in Gibraltar after she found a racist insult written on her restaurant receipt. Her mother shared a photograph of the message online, prompting an angry response from residents and questions about how it had been allowed to appear on a customer’s bill.

The words, written in Spanish, read: ‘Moro de mierda vuelve a tu pais’, a deeply offensive insult telling a Moroccan person to go back to their country. The mother explained that her daughter had visited the restaurant with a friend a couple of days earlier. She said the family would not be returning to the establishment. 

Restaurant’s explanation sparks further criticism

The incident quickly drew attention on social media, with commenters questioning whether the restaurant had taken sufficient action and whether the matter should be reported to the Royal Gibraltar Police.

The restaurant, identified as Chatzz, subsequently issued a statement describing the message as an ‘in-joke’ between two members of staff. It said the employee responsible had been dismissed. That explanation has not convinced everyone. Several people questioned how a remark of that nature could be dismissed as a private joke when it had ended up on a customer’s receipt. Others wanted to know why only one member of staff had lost their job if two employees had been involved.

Customers threaten to boycott restaurant

The reaction has also reached beyond the original post, with some people saying they will no longer eat at Chatzz or other restaurants operated by the same group. One commenter said their family would be avoiding the establishment after reading the company’s explanation. Another questioned whether the employee responsible might simply be moved to a different restaurant within the group. Others called on the customer to report the incident to the Royal Gibraltar Police (RGP), while several demanded a fuller apology from the business.

There were also calls for customers to check their receipts before leaving the restaurant, with people concerned that the incident might not be an isolated occurrence. However, there is no evidence that similar messages have appeared on other customers’ bills. One particularly disturbing comment speculated about whether the daughter’s food could have been interfered with. No evidence has been provided to support that suggestion, and it remains speculation rather than an allegation established by the customer.

Questions remain over the company’s response

The incident has put the restaurant’s handling of the matter under scrutiny, particularly its description of the message as an internal joke. Even if the words were originally exchanged between colleagues, they appeared on a customer’s receipt and were seen by someone who had no part in the alleged joke. The daughter and her friend were customers, not participants in the exchange.

The mother’s decision to share the receipt has also prompted wider discussion about racism and the treatment of people of Moroccan and North African origin in Gibraltar. For the family involved, the response is straightforward: they will not be returning to Chatzz. Whether the company’s explanation and the dismissal of one employee will be enough to reassure other customers remains to be seen. The restaurant has been approached for comment. This article will be updated if a response is received

If you have ever gone into Primark during the sales and wondered where all the best bargains have gone, one store in Melilla may have had an unusual explanation. A supervisor was allegedly hiding newly reduced clothes and homeware around the shop so she could buy them herself later, rather than letting customers get their hands on them. The woman had been working for the retailer since 2016, but her own shopping arrangements eventually landed her in trouble with her employer, and a Spanish court has now backed the decision to dismiss her.

The assistant manager worked at Primark’s store in the Parque Melilla shopping centre. The court heard that she had been keeping discounted merchandise out of customers’ reach and allowing other workers to do the same. The practice came to light in February, while the store director was on holiday. Two team managers raised concerns with the personnel manager after hearing reports that goods marked down in additional reductions, known internally as ‘Furthers’, were being put aside instead of being returned to the shop floor.

Hidden bargains in the shop

According to evidence considered by the court, the products were tucked away in less visible parts of the store, including the fitting rooms. Staff could then buy them during their breaks or after finishing work. One team manager said a colleague had admitted hiding products alongside the assistant manager and members of the external cleaning team. Another said she had heard the supervisor explaining to a sales assistant how to conceal items. When she realised she was being overheard, the supervisor reportedly added: “But I haven’t told you anything.”

There was another telling exchange on February 2. A team manager saw the assistant manager searching among sheets and pillows on a display bed. She reportedly complained: “They always take the things I put aside.” The court also considered an electronic record of a purchase made five days later. The employee clocked out for her break at 10.02am on February 7 and, five minutes later, bought ten items for €35.80 using her staff number. She clocked back in at 10.21am. On the same day, external cleaning staff were found putting reduced items in the fitting rooms. They said the assistant manager had given them permission.

Primark rules expressly prohibited it

The company’s Welcome Handbook, given to employees when they join, specifically bans reserving merchandise for personal use or for other people. The rule applied even if staff intended to pay for the goods later therefore Primark dismissed the assistant manager. The disciplinary letter accused her of seriously failing to fulfil her responsibilities, disobeying workplace rules and breaching the trust and good faith expected of an employee.

She challenged the dismissal in court. Juzgado Social No. 1 in Melilla rejected her claim on October 29 2025, finding that the allegations were supported by the two team managers’ evidence, staff purchase and clocking records, and the company handbook. The employee then appealed to the High Court of Justice of Andalucía (TSJA), arguing that the evidence did not justify the decision to sack her.

Judges uphold the dismissal

In its ruling of September 28, 2026, the TSJA rejected the appeal and confirmed that the dismissal was justified. The judges agreed that the assistant manager had deliberately kept discounted goods from customers so she could obtain them for herself, while also allowing cleaning staff to reserve products. Her senior position counted against her. Rather than ensuring company procedures were followed, she had used her authority to permit the very conduct she was expected to prevent.

The court also rejected the argument that dismissal was too severe because the items involved were of relatively low value. In cases involving a serious breach of trust or good faith, the judges said, the decisive issue is the loss of confidence between employer and employee, not simply the financial value of the goods. The ruling leaves Primark’s decision in place. The case was an employment dispute, not a criminal prosecution, and the court’s decision concerns whether the company had grounds to dismiss the employee.

A man who was supposed to be looking after his own cousin is accused of doing something that cost him his life. Italian investigators believe the 76-year-old deliberately gave his 74-year-old relative a cream-filled doughnut, knowing he was unable to swallow solid food.

The victim was living in a care home in Reggio Emilia, northern Italy, where his diet was strictly controlled because of severe dysphagia. His cousin had been appointed his legal guardian in 2009 and was familiar with the restrictions on what he could eat. The 76-year-old is now under house arrest, suspected of premeditated murder. Prosecutors believe the pastry was deliberately given to the resident and that his death may have been linked to an inheritance worth more than €300,000.

A visit that ended in tragedy

According to investigators, the cousin arrived at the care home with cream-filled pastries, known in Italy as bomboloni. He is alleged to have brought them in without the knowledge of staff and left them where his relative could reach them. The suspect then reportedly went to reception to show staff the packaging for an electric razor he said he had bought for the resident. Investigators believe this gave his cousin an opportunity to eat the pastry without staff noticing.

The 74-year-old began choking. Rather than immediately telling care workers that he had eaten a doughnut, the suspect allegedly went to a vending machine to buy a fizzy drink and tried to get his cousin to drink it. He eventually called nurses over, saying that the man was unwell. Staff noticed crumbs and food residue on the resident’s clothing and discovered that he had eaten a solid pastry, despite his prescribed diet. Care home staff tried to clear his airway and emergency services were called. The obstruction was complete, however, and the man died.

His cousin was responsible for his care

The victim’s swallowing problems were severe and progressive. His medical plan allowed only food that had been blended or prepared in liquid form, because solid food could cause him to choke. Investigators say the suspect knew about the danger. As the man’s legal guardian, he had been involved in his care for years.

Reports from the investigation also suggest that he had previously tried to bring sweets and pastries into the facility, despite the restrictions. The authorities are examining whether the doughnut was part of a deliberate attempt to cause his cousin’s death. The alleged failure to alert staff promptly after the choking began is also central to the case.

Investigators examine a possible inheritance motive

The financial circumstances of the victim have become another important part of the inquiry. He reportedly owned assets worth more than €300,000, and his cousin was among the people entitled to inherit from him. Prosecutors suspect that the prospect of receiving that money may have provided a motive.

They are also investigating allegations that the 76-year-old tried to influence relatives’ accounts of events and agree on what they would tell investigators. The case has involved medical records, witness statements, forensic evidence and technical investigations. These are being used to establish what happened during the visit, what the suspect knew about the resident’s condition and whether the death was planned. The care home’s records and staff accounts are also being compared with the suspect’s version of events.

Murder investigation continues

The 76-year-old has been placed under house arrest while the investigation continues. He faces allegations of premeditated murder, with aggravating circumstances linked to his position as legal guardian and the victim’s disability and inability to protect himself. The arrest does not amount to a conviction. 

Prosecutors will still have to establish that the suspect deliberately gave his cousin the pastry, that he intended to cause his death and that inheritance was the motive. The 74-year-old died on June 27. Four months later, the investigation is focused on the actions of the relative who had been entrusted with his care.