Being filmed like a criminal.

Pollycat

Mistral001 wrote: »

It is not discouraging theft that is at dispute here, just this particular method.

As you said here ^^^^
It's not supermarket jobs at dispute here.

Mistral001 wrote: »

I think it is a good thing that there is face to face interaction with a human. This is a move way from that it could be argued.

As Undervalued has pointed out - that is a different issue.

Mistral001

Pollycat wrote: »

As you said here ^^^^
It's not supermarket jobs at dispute here.


As Undervalued has pointed out - that is a different issue.

I disagree with you and Undervalued.

[Deleted User]

With the greatest respect many people do not have the option of the luxury of being able to pay a few pennies extra from choice rather than use commercial premises that do have automated tills that also take photographs of the customers. From preference I would myself much rather go to a checkout manned by a real human being, it's much less hassle than having to wait for someone when (and if) the self service facility has a melt down and all the lights and bells go off together but if the queue for a human is too long or occupied by someone with a query orthere is a problem with one of the items on the conveyor belt and price checks are being made because there is discrepancy between the till and the price ticket on the item then I'm jolly grateful that there is the option to go self service and save time particularly if I'm on countdown to the once an hour bus back home.

Pollycat

Mistral001 wrote: »

I disagree with you and Undervalued.

Just for clarification...
are you saying that is is about supermarket jobs versus self service tills?
are you saying it is about discouraging theft (as opposed to this particular model')?

Just trying to determine exactly what you disagree with.

Mistral001

Pollycat wrote: »

Just for clarification...
are you saying that is is about supermarket jobs versus self service tills?
are you saying it is about discouraging theft (as opposed to this particular model')?

Just trying to determine exactly what you disagree with.

Your post made no sense to me. All I got from it is was a sense that you agreed with undervalued and disagreed with me. Hence my reply.

Pollycat

Mistral001 wrote: »

Your post made no sense to me. All I got from it is was a sense that you agreed with undervalued and disagreed with me. Hence my reply.

Ah. OK.
My apologies.

You posted that

Mistral001 wrote: »

I think it is a good thing that there is face to face interaction with a human.

and Undervalued agreed but said it was a different issue.
I also agree it is a different issue - that of loss of jobs.

But that isn't relevant to the installation of 'filming' equipment - imho of course.

As you said

Mistral001 wrote: »

Ah we are back on topic.

This is all about customers being photographed individually at close range just because they want to buy something as little as baked beans.

not about 'face to face interaction with a human'.


You also said

Mistral001 wrote: »

It is not discouraging theft that is at dispute here, just this particular method.

but I think discouraging theft is important regardless of the method - imho of course.

Therefore, I think we have a general disagreement in that I don't see anything wrong with methods employed by supermarkets at self-service tills and you do.

Personally, I'd rather save 'a few extra pennies' as I really don't see it as a detriment to my 'human dignity and privacy'.

And anyone who does feel that it is can always opt to shop elsewhere.

Mistral001

Thanks for the reply.

It is the method of discouraging theft by using in your face cameras and monitors that is in dispute amongst many members who have posted here. That is what I was referring to.

I seems that the self service tills have a problem and this is a way of fixing that problem. However, I think it is the wrong fix. I use these machines myself on a regular basis.

It is like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Often the simple answers to a problem are the hardest answers to come up. The supermarkets will have to think again in my view.

Pollycat

Mistral001 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.

It is the method of discouraging theft by using in your face cameras and monitors that is in dispute amongst many members who have posted here. That is what I was referring to.

I seems that the self service tills have a problem and this is a way of fixing that problem. However, I think it is the wrong fix. I use these machines myself on a regular basis.

It is like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Often the simple answers to a problem are the hardest answers to come up. The supermarkets will have to think again in my view.

OK.
I think we understand each other, although we do disagree.

How do you propose to convince supermarkets that their approach to self service tills need a different approach?

dekaspace

Basically, these aren't for the customers benefit but the businesses, sure they take a hit without them. But it is becoming more and more like rather than provide a good service and make money from it, it now becomes you have to do as we say to shop here.

VfM4meplse

dekaspace wrote: »

Basically, these aren't for the customers benefit but the businesses, sure they take a hit without them. But it is becoming more and more like rather than provide a good service and make money from it, it now becomes you have to do as we say to shop here.

This is where Adam Smith's invisible hand comes in.

Luckily it operates on market forces rather than pinching groceries :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: