JJB gave grandsons ipod away.

marleyboy

That reminds me of a time when my flat got burgled (about 15yrs ago), the burglar actually lived at his GF address directly above me, (it was a house converted into two flats), to cut a long story short his GF was suspicious her BF had something to do with it, because of soot marks on the loft entrance.

She allowed me access to the loft and hey presto, there was all my electrical goods, minus my cd collection, bits of jewellery etc. I phoned the police to report it and eventually two police officers arrived, one climbed into the loft with me and asked me to take them down, I asked if they needed to be dabbed for prints first and he sighed.

He said "obviously he was taking the micky", so I replied rather sarcastically "OBVIOULSY - BUT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?". I could not believe he turned around and said "Oh, so you WANT to press charges do you?", and sighed heavily when I said "Oh YES!" with a mutter of "more paperwork to do now".

It culminated in me having to go to the police station to make an official complaint - against the police, as a Month later still nothing was done and my GF was being terrorised by this individual who was still roaming free and visiting his GF daily. Eventually it was CID who got involved and this guy was arrested and charged.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Pollycat wrote: »

Gag?

PMSL - not.

I think the OP has enough on her plate with people telling her she's lying, saying her grandson shouldn't have been given an expensive item of technology, hounding her for answers to questions - without your misguided attempt at humour or irony.

Maybe not but its 17 pages long and still no answer as to how the OP knew what they were saying on the cctv.

And theres more then enough people i have read over the years who scream con and scam whenever they dont get their own way - in this case directed at JJB who acted in all honesty by giving it to someone who claimed it was theirs.

there is an easy way to find out who the ipod belongs to as its in the menu folder.

marleyboy

I really dont think the OP has used the words "CON" or "SCAM" in any of her posts in this thread. Moreso I dont think she needs answer questions that dont seem relevant to the case in question.

Although I do agree the frustration is being taken out needlessly on JJb, who in this case are as much the victim of this "scam" than the poor child. It is the thief in general who is the "scammer", nobody else. But I dont think the OP has accused JJb of being the scam artist.

Pollycat

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

Maybe not but its 17 pages long and still no answer as to how the OP knew what they were saying on the cctv.

Please point out where it says that anyone HAS to answer ALL questions asked on any thread.

The thread may well be 17 pages long but (at least as far as I can see) it was only on page 12 that someone speculated that the cctv might not have been of sufficient quality to pick up the conversation as stated by the OP.

The OP said yesterday at 10:20am that she'll pop back when there's an update.

Unlike some others on this thread, I'm taking what the OP says as true until proved otherwise.
The OP goes into some detail about what happened and what was said on the cctv.
As it was her son who viewed the cctv recording, I guess she has had the information second-hand.
I'm sure she's stated exactly what her son told her was on the cctv tape.

My son asked how this could happen so the manager looked at the shop cctv tape. This shows a staff member bringing the ipod to the pay area and saying to the manager "Someone's left an ipod here." The manager says "OK, just put it in lost property".

There's a woman standing paying for her purchase via credit card next to him listening to this.

The woman leaves the store, returns two minutes later and says to the manager "Has anyone handed in an iphone?" (Not ipod) .

The manager says, "Do you mean ipod?". The woman hesitates, then says "Yes, I meant ipod".

The manager sends a staff member for it, and the woman takes it and leaves quickly.

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

And theres more then enough people i have read over the years who scream con and scam whenever they dont get their own way - in this case directed at JJB who acted in all honesty by giving it to someone who claimed it was theirs.

I can't see what this has to do with anything.
It was you who (in an admitted attempt at humour) mentioned 'con'.
And most people who scream con, scam, rip-off or any other similar words are usually wrong.

JJB may have acted 'in all honesty' in giving the ipod to the woman but they also acted naively by not asking for proof of ownership before handing it over.

Freddie_Snowbits

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

Maybe not but its 17 pages long and still no answer as to how the OP knew what they were saying on the cctv.

It was her words in the first post, as stated by my good self below.

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

And the Grandmother can extract statements from witness who saw the video tape, but the police coulld not?

Still we await the Compy Cheque

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Pollycat wrote: »

Please point out where it says that anyone HAS to answer ALL questions asked on any thread.

The thread may well be 17 pages long but (at least as far as I can see) it was only on page 12 that someone speculated that the cctv might not have been of sufficient quality to pick up the conversation as stated by the OP.

The OP said yesterday at 10:20am that she'll pop back when there's an update.

Unlike some others on this thread, I'm taking what the OP says as true until proved otherwise.
The OP goes into some detail about what happened and what was said on the cctv.
As it was her son who viewed the cctv recording, I guess she has had the information second-hand.
I'm sure she's stated exactly what her son told her was on the cctv tape.




I can't see what this has to do with anything.
It was you who (in an admitted attempt at humour) mentioned 'con'.
And most people who scream con, scam, rip-off or any other similar words are usually wrong.

JJB may have acted 'in all honesty' in giving the ipod to the woman but they also acted naively by not asking for proof of ownership before handing it over.

Look love - i put the wink there to be a little cheeky.. Deal with it.

Pollycat

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

Look love - i put the wink there to be a little cheeky.. Deal with it.

Why quote my reply when your reply has got sod all to do with it?

"Deal with" what exactly?

If anyone needs to deal with something, I guess that should be you.

YOU seem to be harking back to an poor attempt at humour, not me.
I just replied to your latest post.
It's just tough if you didn't like what I said.

lucylucky

"As it was her son who viewed the cctv recording"

Where does the OP assert this?

marleyboy

lucylucky wrote: »

"As it was her son who viewed the cctv recording"

Where does the OP assert this?

The OP mentions it here......

My son asked how this could happen so the manager looked at the shop cctv tape. This shows a staff member bringing the ipod to the pay area and saying to the manager "Someone's left an ipod here." The manager says "OK, just put it in lost property".

There's a woman standing paying for her purchase via credit card next to him listening to this.

The woman leaves the store, returns two minutes later and says to the manager "Has anyone handed in an iphone?" (Not ipod) .

The manager says, "Do you mean ipod?". The woman hesitates, then says "Yes, I meant ipod".

The manager sends a staff member for it, and the woman takes it and leaves quickly.

patman99

If you were to remove all the inter-post snipping, then this thread would be less than 5 pages.
Freddie, you indicate in this (and other threads), that you are a BSL. Well, I hope you don't talk to the Beavers, Leaders & parents like you 'talk' to people on MSE.