Tesco misprice discussion area part 16

MrsTee_2

Little_John wrote:

As for the dispatches program comming up, take it with a pinch of salt, a company I work for was reciently involved in a TV documentry claiming that illegal payments were being received. an investigation has been made in to the claims and they have been found to be wrong, the TV company is yet to issue an apology to the people involved, some I have known for a long time.

.

Yep, I work for RM and the dispatches program about them contained an accusation that postmen had taken, and used, a credit card from the mail. Investigation by RM proved that the credit card concerned was never even put into the RM system, but was in the hands of a private courier company.
This was one of several false accusations so don't expect the Tesco one to be totally truthful in what it finds.

frenchman_2

Little_John wrote:

they pass it on to the supplier who is currently EUK .

I think it is a little bit too easy for tesco to use Euk as a dark horse. Shouldn't it be the staff therefore the manager therefore tesco...... who has made the mistake for leaving two different prices on shelf
Sorry only just learned to spell therefore:cool:

Frenchman: thanks for spelling Mr T's

MrsTee_2

frenchman wrote:

I think it is a little bit too easy for tesco to use Euk as a dark horse. Shouldn't it be the staff therfore the manager therfore tesco......
Sorry only just learned to spell therfore:cool:

You were taught wrong
It's 'therefore'

frenchman_2

MrsTee wrote:

You were taught wrong
It's 'therefore'

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: merci:T

FloFlo

Which means that TS would expect them to offer to sell it to you at the advertised price - which is what they will usually offer. TS are not interested then as to whether Tesco additionally compensate you in accordance with their policy. Not fair but its true, ood sels should be classed as r&r but unless Tesco agree with you no one will force them to to.

FloFlo

I find it hard to believe with all the goings on in the world of supermarkets that land acquisition is the juiciest story they could investigate.

frenchman_2

FloFlo wrote:

I find it hard to believe with all the goings on in the world of supermarkets that land acquisition is the juiciest story they could investigate.

We all have to start somewhere

The popular belief in the 1920s and 30s was that illegal gambling earnings were not taxable income. However, the 1927 Sullivan ruling claimed that illegal profits were in fact taxable. The government wanted to indict Capone for income tax evasion, Capone never filed an income tax return, owned nothing in his own name, and never made a declaration of assets or income. He did all his business through front men so that he was anonymous when it came to income. Frank Wilson from the IRS's Special Intelligence Unit was assigned to focus on Capone. Wilson accidentally found a cash receipts ledger that not only showed the operation's net profits for a gambling house, but also contained Capone's name; it was a record of Capone's income. Later Capone's own tax lawyer Lawrence P. Mattingly admitted in a letter to the government that Capone had an income. Wilson's ledger, Mattingly's letter, and the coercion of witnesses were the main evidence used to convict Capone.

It has to start somewhere !!!

bloaty

Had an R & R on a BOGOF tonight that didn't take one of my items off (under £5).

CS took delight in informing me that from next week the policy is changing and we will only get double the difference back. Which in the case of BOGOFs still amounts to your money back, unless I'm wrong. LOL.

Must be trying to clamp down on refunds on overpriced items.

Should be an interesting one.

ginjim

prefer not to discuss this untill it is actually policy
u problably went to TEs store

mrs2fat

just what i was thinking, or maybe served by te himself/herself