banned from all marks and spencer stores?

bookworm1363

What paragons of virtue we have on the Internet. They made no mistakes in all their born years, had perfect judgment from childhood onwards, married their first love and are still married to them 20, 30 or 40 years on (as otherwise it would mean they had made a mistake), started saving age 16 so they never had to borrow ever, never went overdrawn or had a debt, eat 5 a day and never drink or eat to excess... One wonders what brings them to this site in fact, surely they have no need for any of the money saving measures or help so many seek?

Get off your moral high horses, people, if OP wanted a sermon, he would have gone to church. :rolleyes:

thcollar

Er, pot - kettle - black...

What is it with people who find the moral high ground in criticising those who have not passed judgement on anyone but restated the facts? You're whinge was a constant stream of judgements. And none of this helps anyone. If the girl knew what wa going on she should have walked away. It's got nothing to do with moral high ground, it's about doing the right thing. And the more people argue away their behaviour by claiming 'pressure' the more those who do things because they want to do them get away with it. Please don't tell me I'm being judgemental when I've had to deal with kids who think they can get away with something and then turn the waterworks on when their mum walks in.

No-one's saying the girl was guilty, but we know the others were. This has nothing to do with them. It's about a girl who got caught in something she shouldn't have. If it wasn't her fault, she should be helped to stop worrying. As she's done nothing wrong, nothing's going to come back on her. The point is, she needs to look at mates who aren't going to get her into trouble.

God bless us, everyone.

Tozer

I think Bookworm was quite rightly making the point that this board is about "Consumer Rights". The OP was asking what her daughter's position in law is.

I'm sure we all have our views as to the rights and wrongs behind the issue, but it seems to me to be the wrong place to voice them.

peachyprice

Dave101t wrote: »

they have been banned from the property for stealing. the only reason to be on the property after this event is to steal again. hope they all get what they deserve, dare or no.

It's a shop !!!!!!, maybe, just maybe, they might go in to buy some knickers in the future

thcollar

Tozer wrote: »

I think Bookworm was quite rightly making the point that this board is about "Consumer Rights". The OP was asking what her daughter's position in law is.

I'm sure we all have our views as to the rights and wrongs behind the issue, but it seems to me to be the wrong place to voice them.

Fully agree. We shouldn't be having a slanging match but it's more helpful to have measured response like yours than diatribes.

Apologies if anyone got particularly offended and I hope the daughter sleeps easy.

olly300

bookworm1363 wrote: »

My boy got stopped in Boots a few yrs ago, as 2 of his mates had nicked something (well, one nicked and used the other's bag to hide it) and they got caught. I got a phone call from the transport police (they were in a station) telling me about it, and telling me they'd all been banned for life from Boots, and for the doubters, she's the one who told me that my son hadn't been involved in the incident, wasn't even watching out for the others, just happened to be with them but a few shelves down doing his own thing (nothing unusual there, lol), but that he had been banned all the same just for being there with them.

At the time, I was all set to go to town on Boots about it, since he was effectively banned simply for being with his mates, but didn't in the end and have often wondered about the legality of it all... I mean, not found guilty of anything, yet targeted... Records kept (presumably) of minors for the rest of their lives... Data Protection Act issues... etc etc...

I find the whole "guilty by association" quite distasteful and sloppy by the stores: they can't be bothered finding out who did what, let's tar all the kids with the same brush and ban the lot. For the innocent ones, what a lesson in British justice, hey? It doesn't matter if I did it or not, I'll get blamed amyway.

It's not sloppy on the stores behalf. I strongly doubt that your boy either didn't know his mates stole or guessed what they were up to unless he never hung out with them at all before in that way or is very stupid.

When I was 15 I hung around with 2 girls at school who I thought were cool. We went into Superdrugs and we all brought some items. We then came out of the store and they revealed more items then they had brought. Needless to say I made excuses not to go to any shops with them any more.

bookworm1363

olly300 wrote: »

I strongly doubt that your boy either didn't know his mates stole or guessed what they were up to unless he never hung out with them at all before in that way or is very stupid.

Doubt all you like, I think I'll choose to believe the police officer who phoned me who was actually there and went to great lengths to convince me that he had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: As for stupid, this was a child who at 6 had the maths ability of a 12 year old, so no, stupid is not the word... Head in the clouds on the other hand... Classed as a genius, but the common sense of a gnat. But thanks for the gratuitous insult anyway. It's always nice to have a perfect stranger feeling free to insult one's children and contributing nothing to the debate in the meantime. :rolleyes: