JJB gave grandsons ipod away.

lucylucky

marleyboy wrote: »

The OP mentions it here......

Where?

Apologies I cannot see anything in the quote you posted that says her son watched any CCTV footage?

(But I may have missed it)

marleyboy

Now I think your just acting silly, unless her Son had some amazing mind reading abilities as to describe the events on the CCTV, one can easily ascertain that her Son watched it with the manager. Unless of course the manager gave a very explicit step by step, detailed account of the footage.

Either way, its clear that the footage is detailed enough to give an accurate account of the event as it occurred.

lucylucky

So there is as yet no statement that the son watched the CCTV.

The manager may well have explained what he saw (and heard)

Now that the son is home let's hope he gets some response from the police today as he will surely be seeing them, if he has not already.

Pollycat

lucylucky wrote: »

Where?

Apologies I cannot see anything in the quote you posted that says her son watched any CCTV footage?

(But I may have missed it)

It wasn't in the text from the OP's first post that I quoted - when I quoted that part of the original post it was to show what the son probably told his mum (the OP) - but it is certainly in the original post.

zaksmum wrote: »

The manager said they'd found it, but it had already been claimed.
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.
When my son saw this, he asked if the woman could be traced as she paid with credit card.

As "SAW" is the past tense of the verb "to see" I took it to mean that the OP's son had actually SEEN the cctv tape.
Of course, you may wish to put a totally different interpretation on that word.

marleyboy wrote: »

Now I think your just acting silly, unless her Son had some amazing mind reading abilities as to describe the events on the CCTV, one can easily ascertain that her Son watched it with the manager. Unless of course the manager gave a very explicit step by step, detailed account of the footage.

Either way, its clear that the footage is detailed enough to give an accurate account of the event as it occurred.

Hear! Hear! Marleyboy.

Freddie_Snowbits

lucylucky wrote: »

So there is as yet no statement that the son watched the CCTV.

Pollycat wrote: »

It wasn't in the text from the OP's first post that I quoted - when I quoted that part of the original post it was to show what the son probably told his mum (the OP) - but it is certainly in the original post.

Seems the Grandmother has been able to extract witness statements all the time boys

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

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

warehouse

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Seems the Grandmother has been able to extract witness statements all the time boys

It's people like you who are wrecking this site.

Freddie_Snowbits

warehouse wrote: »

It's people like you who are wrecking this site.

Nothing to add to the expensive toy that has gone missing then?
Nor has OP

aliasojo

warehouse wrote: »

It's people like you who are wrecking this site.

I agree. It's one thing offering an alternative opinion but this is not helpful in any way and spoils an otherwise interesting discussion.

It's a shame people use these types of threads to air their argumentative side, it serves no purpose and their comments don't add anything useful.

Sorry, don't mean to be unkind to anyone but the childishness and snippy comments are becoming tedious.

Freddie_Snowbits

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Was not the son negligent in the first place? I doubt if the store were negligent in a sense, someone walking in claiming I lost an iPod and there being one is I suppose a bit naughty of the real thief, it does not distract from the item being left in the first place.

Part of life’s rich tapestry, learn by your experiences and stop blaming others for your pitfalls

aliasojo wrote: »

I agree. It's one thing offering an alternative opinion but this is not helpful in any way and spoils an otherwise interesting discussion.

It's a shame people use these types of threads to air their argumentative side, it serves no purpose and their comments don't add anything useful.

Sorry, don't mean to be unkind to anyone but the childishness and snippy comments are becoming tedious.

Funny how I do not comment on most threads, and leave the Banking issues ones alone, advise people when they are on the wrong thread, people think I am childish. I reiterate my initials thoughts on here again, just in case you missed them, and I noted along that you had diferrin views. Most of us on here advised that OP should go to the police, though some thought it a waste of time. I did say so. Again there was discssion on the virtiues of Finders-Keepers on this thread, and it highlights that most around this parish would return the find to its rightful owners.

You said arguementative. Is posting on Saturday morning nonsense aboiut the police staion blue lamps argumentative? No. But did OP or her entourage go to the Police. I doubt it.

Then again in an internet forum, if one does not want their dirty washing talked about, one should not seek advise.

In this case, I await OPs verdict and thesapturing of the thief. One reckons the Compy Cheque was in vision all along.

lucylucky

Pollycat wrote: »

It wasn't in the text from the OP's first post that I quoted - when I quoted that part of the original post it was to show what the son probably told his mum (the OP) - but it is certainly in the original post.


As "SAW" is the past tense of the verb "to see" I took it to mean that the OP's son had actually SEEN the cctv tape.
Of course, you may wish to put a totally different interpretation on that word.

My apologies I did indeed miss it - as I thought I might have done, I under stand why I didn't see it in the quoted post now.



Hear! Hear! Marleyboy.

Wonder what the police have said?