I got assualted in Tesco!

IvanOpinion

I just get the impresison that some people are too sad to be allowed out in the first place ... alternatively I must consider taking an assault case against my friend who I had not seen for a couple of years .. he came up to me and gave me a big hug ... does anybody know how much such a common assault is worth (maybe I could push my luck and get it labelled as sexual assault, because he then punched me in one of my nipples)

Ivan

superscaper

IvanOpinion wrote: »

I just get the impresison that some people are too sad to be allowed out in the first place ... alternatively I must consider taking an assault case against my friend who I had not seen for a couple of years .. he came up to me and gave me a big hug ... does anybody know how much such a common assault is worth (maybe I could push my luck and get it labelled as sexual assault)

Ivan

I'd love to help but those ba**** lawyers have accounted for that kind of thing and will be covered by the exemptions, as is "patting someone on the back" etc. Although are you having traumatic flashbacks from the experience and is it affecting your day to day routine? I'm sure you could sue for emotional distress and mental anguish.

superscaper

pinkshoes wrote: »

Yes, I KNOW! Hence the use of inverted comments and alot of sarcasm... (apologies if you're autistic or have aspergers, but I did say I'm very sarcastic in the footnote!)

It's also not a crime to put your hand on someone's shoulder as far as I know, otherwise people crammed onto London tubes in rushhour would be screaming "assault" on a daily basis.

Now comes the name calling :rolleyes:. I said I didn't realise whether you meant it literally or not because you ambiguously only put inverted commas around one instance of the word. Not sure how many times you want me to repeat that explanation to you.

I've already posted that it is illegal for any physical contact without consent and is defined as assault under common law in England and Wales. The specific case is Collins v. Wilcox [1984] 3 All ER 374. Simply trying to use absurdem logic isn't relevant as I've already mentioned as well that there are social exemptions that they would be covered by. But the exemptions don't cover the OP's version of events (if that's the way they happened). If you think I'm wrong then feel free to reference it. I never said anything the OP did was right or even that the law is right. I'm not making up the law as I'm going along just quoting it, so if you disagree then point out where I'm wrong rather than the "sensibility" of the law which I'm afraid to inform you I have no control over. I did try to emphasise that it was only technically illegal so I can't be the only one missing what's actually being posted. Unless of course you're being sarcastic about it being legal to lay a hand on someone.

Poppy9

IvanOpinion wrote: »

I just get the impresison that some people are too sad to be allowed out in the first place ... alternatively I must consider taking an assault case against my friend who I had not seen for a couple of years .. he came up to me and gave me a big hug ... does anybody know how much such a common assault is worth (maybe I could push my luck and get it labelled as sexual assault, because he then punched me in one of my nipples)Ivan

Can I have your friend's name as I would like to sue him for discrimination as he didn't hug me. Is it because I'm female?:D

Poppy9

From thw Beat Officer's companion (7th edition):

Assault

In the case of Fagan v Met. Police commissioner 1968 assault was defined as:
An act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.

Common Assault S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

An incident is referred to as being a common assault where the injury is either non-existent or of a negligible nature eg grazes, minor bruising, black eye etc. The police do not normally institute proceedings for this type of occurrence, thus affording the agrrieved person the choice of taking proceedings either criminally or by civil action to obtain damages.

superscaper

Poppy9 wrote: »

Common Assault S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

An incident is referred to as being a common assault where the injury is either non-existent or of a negligible nature eg grazes, minor bruising, black eye etc. The police do not normally institute proceedings for this type of occurrence, thus affording the agrrieved person the choice of taking proceedings either criminally or by civil action to obtain damages.

There's a lot on the web relating to medical law and ethics because of this and why doctors need to get consent before doing anything because "simply laying a hand on another person without his or her consent may result in an action for battery"

pinkshoes

superscaper wrote: »

Now comes the name calling :rolleyes:. I said I didn't realise whether you meant it literally or not because you ambiguously only put inverted commas around one instance of the word. Not sure how many times you want me to repeat that explanation to you.

There was no name calling. I have an autistic cousin and I have to put inverted commas around things that are meant as sarcasm and not to be taken as they are written, so I thought this was perhaps why you didn't get it, and that one set of inverted commas at the end were sufficient.

I still think this whole thing is ridiculous and blown utterly out of proportion by the OP.

If I was in his situation, I would have apologised for opening the bag of bananas, and asked (nicely) if I could go get another bag.

Why on earth this escalated any further than a simple apology for a mistake made by the OP is beyond belief!

superscaper

pinkshoes wrote: »

I still think this whole thing is ridiculous and blown utterly out of proportion by the OP.

If I was in his situation, I would have apologised for opening the bag of bananas, and asked (nicely) if I could go get another bag.

Why on earth this escalated any further than a simple apology for a mistake made by the OP is beyond belief!

I 100% agree with you. The OP was in the wrong. But the staff didn't handle it right either. They should have let him go. If they wanted to ban him etc then fine but they were also escalating the situation.

superscaper

pinkshoes wrote: »

There was no name calling. I have an autistic cousin and I have to put inverted commas around things that are meant as sarcasm and not to be taken as they are written, so I thought this was perhaps why you didn't get it, and that one set of inverted commas at the end were sufficient.

But if you say you're always sarcastic in your sig and you put inverted commas around the bits you're being sarcastic, then aren't you being sarcastic about being sarcastic and therefore negating the inverted commas and making it literal again?

Sorry just playing with you. I apologise for accusing you of name calling. I know people on the autistic-aspergers spectrum have trouble with not taking things literally so I guess if I genuinely didn't understand metaphor or sarcasm then it may be a fair assumption if you hadn't seen my post history.

pinkshoes

superscaper wrote: »

I 100% agree with you. The OP was in the wrong. But the staff didn't handle it right either. They should have let him go. If they wanted to ban him etc then fine but they were also escalating the situation.

True, but I guess if security had been told to stop the OP from leaving as they'd broken the code of conduct (by taking photos instore), and the OP tried to leave, then they were just doing what they'd been asked. For all they knew, the OP could have been filming instore, so they were just doing their job.

Given that the OP also posted:

debtdestroyer wrote: »

Bought a cheap pair of shoes a couple of months ago (converse rip offs so made of fabric rather than leather) They ripped down the side when I was putting them on the other day.

I dont have a recipt but the name of the shop i bought them in is written on the insole.

Is the store obligated to exchange them? Id expect a pair of shoes to last longer than 2 months.

I think they maybe enjoy making a mountain out of a molehill!!! :rotfl: