Asda, if you've got a pram, presume your on the rob!

chewynut

Azari wrote: »

I think that was hyperbole.

LOL it's not. He's a right rude old git these days. I don't think he means to be, it just...happens and he apologises if anyone calls him out on it. There's a long explanation I don't want to go into.

His scooter doesn't have an inbuilt basket. I haven't seen it very often but I seem to think it's like a moped. All the sides are smooth.

Anyway. He would get very upset if anybody accused him of stealing just because he was putting his shopping into something he can actually use. Just because the majority of us can easily carry a basket around does not mean we should treat those who can't as shop lifters - or worse.

mrcow

Azari wrote: »

Yup.

And do you think that Tesco are going to risk the ensuing bad publicity that would result from banning a disabled granddad just because he spoke in 'less than polite tones'?

They didn't get to be the largest food retailer in the UK by making rookie PR mistakes like that.

I have no idea why you're going on about Tesco as it was never stated that this was the store in question. However.......if you insist.

Tesco have absolutely no problem with banning shoppers who abuse their staff, or who are shoplifting. If the man in question threatened to "rip a new one" to the staff, he would more than likely be escorted from the premesis.

http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/Exeter-Tesco-bans-bread-roll-man/story-11825572-detail/story.html

a spokesman added: “The welfare of staff and customers is our highest priority.
“This man was banned for consuming goods there was no attempt to pay for and highly aggressive behaviour which we simply cannot tolerate.”

As would Iceland (even if you are on a mobility scooter):

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Newmarket/Store-ban-for-abusive-pensioner.htm


Tesco may even ban you if you are not wearing the right sort of attire these days!:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8484116.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent

poet123

The defence rests;)

All employers take staff welfare very seriously, they have to, they have a duty of care and a couple of incidents like this sends out the message that they won't tolerate it. Quite rightly imo.

chewynut

poet123 wrote: »

The defence rests;)

All employers take staff welfare very seriously, they have to, they have a duty of care and a couple of incidents like this sends out the message that they won't tolerate it. Quite rightly imo.

I notice that you've completely missed the point I was trying to make.

Some people can't carry baskets or use trolleys for a variety of reasons. What are they supposed to do; wait until somebody is free to come shopping with them? Yeah, that lets them lead a really independant life, doesn't it. At least using a bag lets him get on with his shopping just like everybody else.

Azari

mrcow wrote: »

Tesco have absolutely no problem with banning shoppers who abuse their staff, or who are shoplifting. Straw man argument - no one said that they wouldn't ban someone for actual shoplifting If the man in question threatened to "rip a new one" to the staff, he would more than likely be escorted from the premesis.

http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/Exeter-Tesco-bans-bread-roll-man/story-11825572-detail/story.html This person wasn't disabled so what relevance is it?

poet123 wrote: »

All employers take staff welfare very seriously, they have to, they have a duty of care and a couple of incidents like this sends out the message that they won't tolerate it. Quite rightly imo.

You two are both completely overreacting like a pair of complete drama queens.

Obviously if the person in question was physically aggressive or went beyond a certain limit there is a good chance he'd be banned.

But not just for getting annoyed at someone who implied he might be stealing.

poet123

chewynut wrote: »

I notice that you've completely missed the point I was trying to make.

Some people can't carry baskets or use trolleys for a variety of reasons. What are they supposed to do; wait until somebody is free to come shopping with them? Yeah, that lets them lead a really independant life, doesn't it. At least using a bag lets him get on with his shopping just like everybody else.

I haven't missed the point, I chose not to address it, but if you insist; if you google "motorbility scooters" there are very few without some kind of basket, and according to my googling even fewer that don't have one as an option. So, had he chosen to your Grandad could have made life simpler by doing just that, and he still could.

Very few people cannot carry a basket, but can carry a bag, the motor skills required are the same, and the stores make provision for those in wheelchairs to use adapted trolleys which attach to the chair. Certainly, using a pram does not preclude use of the baskets, which was the point the OP was trying to make.

So, all in all there will be very few people who can shop independently and yet not be able to adhere to the norm of either a basket or a trolley. It is a choice, maybe borne out of convenience, but not necessity, so if you make that choice you must be prepared to be looked at askance and monitored.

poet123

Azari wrote: »

You two are both completely overreacting like a pair of complete drama queens.

Obviously if the person in question was physically aggressive or went beyond a certain limit there is a good chance he'd be banned.

But not just for getting annoyed at someone who implied he might be stealing.

The poster has confirmed how he would react, she disputed your hyperbole claim, and it doesn't fit your assessment.

Overreacting? Drama Queens? is that because from what the poster said, not what you choose to read, you are wrong and we have pointed that out?:T

mrcow

Azari wrote: »

You two are both completely overreacting like a pair of complete drama queens.

Obviously if the person in question was physically aggressive or went beyond a certain limit there is a good chance he'd be banned.

But not just for getting annoyed at someone who implied he might be stealing.

The poster stated that the man would be verbally abusive and may even threaten physical violence. No store worth their salt would tolerate that.

It hasn't happened as yet (as far as we're told) , but if it did cause a problem where he was shopping, he'd do better to ask for a solution, rather than trying to be intimidating and offensive.

Azari

poet123 wrote: »

The poster has confirmed how he would react, she disputed your hyperbole claim, and it doesn't fit your assessment.

Overreacting? Drama Queens? is that because from what the poster said, not what you choose to read, you are wrong and we have pointed that out?:T

LOL, you're really determined not to let this drop. :rotfl:

The poster said: "He's rude enough to us so some hoity toity shopper or member of staff would get torn a new one."

I said that this was hyperbole.

So, either you believe that an old man on a mobility scooter is going to physically tear a hole in someone (in which case you have a pretty weird view of the world) or it was hyperbole.

I've already said that there is a line which, if crossed, will get you banned but my primary point remains: A big chain is going to go out of its way not to garner bad publicity by banning old, disabled, people.

I'm not saying it will never happen, just that its unlikely.

poet123

Azari wrote: »

LOL, you're really determined not to let this drop. :rotfl:

The poster said: "He's rude enough to us so some hoity toity shopper or member of staff would get torn a new one."

I said that this was hyperbole.

So, either you believe that an old man on a mobility scooter is going to physically tear a hole in someone (in which case you have a pretty weird view of the world) or it was hyperbole.

I've already said that there is a line which, if crossed, will get you banned but my primary point remains: A big chain is going to go out of its way not to garner bad publicity by banning old, disabled, people.

I'm not saying it will never happen, just that its unlikely.

What she meant (rather obviously I would have thought)is that he would be abusive, and may even resort to violence, not that he would literally do as she said. So, not hyperbole in that the intent or outcome would not be violent, but incorrect in that he would not literally "tear someone a new one!!"

Given that, I don't think it at all unlikely a store would react strongly.