Tesco hates poor children

[easty]

Well...I may be sensationalising a bit :greengrin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38065679

[Moulin Yarns]

Well...I may be sensationalising a bit :greengrin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38065679

Boroughmuir High School pupils? need you say more (from a former Broughton Senior Secondary pupil :greengrin )

[lyonhibs]

Letting in George Watson's pupils is something that really only George Watson's itself should be obliged to do. (1 guess as to where I went to school :greengrin)

[Future17]

The discrimination isn't just between the different schools; why do adults get in without having to queue?

It's essentially ageism and it isn't just Tesco who are guilty of it.

[calumhibee1]

The discrimination isn't just between the different schools; why do adults get in without having to queue?

It's essentially ageism and it isn't just Tesco who are guilty of it.

Yup. You wouldn't get away with making black people queue outside and come in in no more than groups of two or whatever, this isn't any different. Whatever school, age, colour you are, you should be allowed to access the shop as and when you please.

[danhibees1875]

Is this new(s)?

My school was restricted on numbers and outright banned from several places 10 years ago. Businesses aren't in the habit of turning away custom with no good reason - I'm sure they've adequate reason.

[Pretty Boy]

Is this new(s)?

My school was restricted on numbers and outright banned from several places 10 years ago. Businesses aren't in the habit of turning away custom with no good reason - I'm sure they've adequate reason.

Agree to an extent.

It's a bit off if state school pupils are being treated differently to private. However my mate used to have a shop near to a school in Aberdeen. Every lunchtime the place was full of kids and there was always a few who thought nothing of filling their pockets with all sorts, the school were pretty disinterested when he approached them so he implemented a 2 at a time policy.

It may be viewed as discrimination but in his eyes it was simply protecting his business.

[beensaidbefore]

The discrimination isn't just between the different schools; why do adults get in without having to queue?

It's essentially ageism and it isn't just Tesco who are guilty of it.

Partly cos adults come in to shop and quite a few of the kids come in to fanny about. At least that's what happened when I was at school.
😁

[beensaidbefore]

Is this new(s)?

My school was restricted on numbers and outright banned from several places 10 years ago. Businesses aren't in the habit of turning away custom with no good reason - I'm sure they've adequate reason.

Five finger discount is an issue.

[beensaidbefore]

Agree to an extent.

It's a bit off if state school pupils are being treated differently to private. However my mate used to have a shop near to a school in Aberdeen. Every lunchtime the place was full of kids and there was always a few who thought nothing of filling their pockets with all sorts, the school were pretty disinterested when he approached them so he implemented a 2 at a time policy.

It may be viewed as discrimination but in his eyes it was simply protecting his business.

Exactly.

That said, kids from Watsons will also be doing it. They should all be made to stand in 1 queue. Imo

[danhibees1875]

Agree to an extent.

It's a bit off if state school pupils are being treated differently to private. However my mate used to have a shop near to a school in Aberdeen. Every lunchtime the place was full of kids and there was always a few who thought nothing of filling their pockets with all sorts, the school were pretty disinterested when he approached them so he implemented a 2 at a time policy.

It may be viewed as discrimination but in his eyes it was simply protecting his business.

I agree - pupils from both schools should be penalised/banned. Unless they've evidence that the issue (be it stealing, just generally causing an intimidating and unpleasant atmosphere for other shoppers, or whatever their reason is) is solely caused by the pupils attending that particular school.

Close proximity schools used to try to stagger their break times - so they might be able to differentiate.

Of course, they may well have also just jumped to conclusions. At which point they should reconsider their decision.

[johnbc70]

I read that kids from Watsons are not allowed out at lunchtime, only their S6 pupils can leave the school premises so that makes them 17 or 18 and adults so just like other adults will not queue.

So a bit of a non-story when you establish the facts.

[calumhibee1]

I read that kids from Watsons are not allowed out at lunchtime, only their S6 pupils can leave the school premises so that makes them 17 or 18 and adults so just like other adults will not queue.

So a bit of a non-story when you establish the facts.

But they still shouldn't have to queue whether they're adults or not. Adults steal aswell, not just kids.

[Allant1981]

I get lunch in this store every day and both sets of kids have been in plenty of times, total non story

[McD]

Boroughmuir High School pupils? need you say more (from a former Broughton Senior Secondary pupil :greengrin )


You may may well have went to school with my dad, based on how you describe your school, and your age 😊

[Scouse Hibee]

Non story really Tesco can decide who and when comes into their store just like any other retailer can.If they feel that one particular person or group of people have caused them bother they are quite within their rights to control how they enter.

[Speedy]

Is this new(s)?

My school was restricted on numbers and outright banned from several places 10 years ago. Businesses aren't in the habit of turning away custom with no good reason - I'm sure they've adequate reason.

Was similar when I was at school. There was one in particular who shouted at me and told me to go out and queue because he insisted I never.

I had actually queued so told him to go ram himself. Never been back since.

[Future17]

Non story really Tesco can decide who and when comes into their store just like any other retailer can.If they feel that one particular person or group of people have caused them bother they are quite within their rights to control how they enter.

No, they aren't.

Retailers can only decide who and when comes into their store provided it does not amount to unjust discrimination. If one particular schoolchild has caused them bother they can "control" that one person's entry to the premises provided that action is proportionate and reasonable. They can't use the behaviour of one schoolchild to justify discriminatory treatment of all schoolchildren in comparison to how they treat other customers.

If a white person had stolen from the shop previously, would Tesco be within their rights to make all white people queue up whilst black people were not required to? Or vice versa re: skin colour?

[Scouse Hibee]

No, they aren't.

Retailers can only decide who and when comes into their store provided it does not amount to unjust discrimination. If one particular schoolchild has caused them bother they can "control" that one person's entry to the premises provided that action is proportionate and reasonable. They can't use the behaviour of one schoolchild to justify discriminatory treatment of all schoolchildren in comparison to how they treat other customers.

If a white person had stolen from the shop previously, would Tesco be within their rights to make all white people queue up whilst black people were not required to? Or vice versa re: skin colour?

If a group of associated people are known to cause trouble in this case groups of school children where no individual has been identified then a retailer is quite within their right to refuse that group of associated people entry or control their entry. A retail premises is not a public place, the retailer decides who and when people enter their shop. This group of people will no doubt contain people of different ethnicity, your example of black versus white is ludicrous and of course discrimination like that wouldn't be allowed. Been there, done it and have had the backing of the Police when challenged so you're wasting your time trying to tell me otherwise.

[speedy_gonzales]

If a group of associated people are known to cause trouble in this case groups of school children where no individual has been identified then a retailer is quite within their right to refuse that group of associated people entry or control their entry. A retail premises is not a public place, the retailer decides who and when people enter their shop. This group of people will no doubt contain people of different ethnicity, your example of black versus white is ludicrous and of course discrimination like that wouldn't be allowed. Been there, done it and have had the backing of the Police when challenged so you're wasting your time trying to tell me otherwise.

I'm genuinely surprised by that, in this case it's a case of discrimination based on the colour of their blazer.

[johnbc70]

You think the crime of the century has been committed going by some people on here.

Your the manager of Tesco, you have large groups of kids who want to all come into your shop at once and it's likely some will steal.

Do you A) have a free for all with no order and just let everyone get on with it. B) Have an orderly queuing system so that numbers in the shop can be managed causing less disruption for all.

We queue all the time when places are busy, why is this such an issue. We have established it's not one rule for one school and one for another as Watsons kids don't get out at lunch.

[calumhibee1]

You think the crime of the century has been committed going by some people on here.

Your the manager of Tesco, you have large groups of kids who want to all come into your shop at once and it's likely some will steal.

Do you A) have a free for all with no order and just let everyone get on with it. B) Have an orderly queuing system so that numbers in the shop can be managed causing less disruption for all.

We queue all the time when places are busy, why is this such an issue. We have established it's not one rule for one school and one for another as Watsons kids don't get out at lunch.

Adults aren't forced to queue though so while it's not one rule for one school etc it is one rule for one and one for another if kids have to queue because a minority of kids steal while adults don't even though adults can also steal.

[Future17]

If a group of associated people are known to cause trouble in this case groups of school children where no individual has been identified then a retailer is quite within their right to refuse that group of associated people entry or control their entry. A retail premises is not a public place, the retailer decides who and when people enter their shop. This group of people will no doubt contain people of different ethnicity, your example of black versus white is ludicrous and of course discrimination like that wouldn't be allowed. Been there, done it and have had the backing of the Police when challenged so you're wasting your time trying to tell me otherwise.

Whilst it is not a public place as such, it is providing a public service and must apply for necessary licenses in order to do so. A condition of some of those licenses requires them not to discriminate in the service they provide (subject to the law). Accordingly, the retailer must have reasonable grounds to refuse a group (or an individual) entry. Bad behaviour by a member of that group is extremely unlikely to be help as reasonable grounds if the classification of people within that group is based on something as wide as age.

It isn't a ludicrous comparison as discrimination based on age is just as important an issue as any other type of discrimination, including racial.

You've said you've had the backing of the police when challenged in your experience/example. Broadly speaking, discrimination of this sort is a civil rather than criminal matter (although it can be both) so I'm surprised the police got involved. In my experience, when faced with someone who is sober and knows the law, the police run a mile (figuratively speaking) from making these sorts of decisions. Unless there's a public order breach, they simply don't want to get involved.


You think the crime of the century has been committed going by some people on here.

Your the manager of Tesco, you have large groups of kids who want to all come into your shop at once and it's likely some will steal.

Do you A) have a free for all with no order and just let everyone get on with it. B) Have an orderly queuing system so that numbers in the shop can be managed causing less disruption for all.

We queue all the time when places are busy, why is this such an issue. We have established it's not one rule for one school and one for another as Watsons kids don't get out at lunch.

If everyone was queueing, there would be no issue. Not everyone is being asked to queue. Those who are have been asked to do so based purely on their age. That might not be crime of the century, but it's discriminatory.

[johnbc70]

Adults aren't forced to queue though so while it's not one rule for one school etc it is one rule for one and one for another if kids have to queue because a minority of kids steal while adults don't even though adults can also steal.

So your the manager for that shop, you would just let them all in at the same time? Chaos in the shop for 20 or 30 mins over a sensible orderly approach.

It's common sense that's all.

[Scouse Hibee]

Whilst it is not a public place as such, it is providing a public service and must apply for necessary licenses in order to do so. A condition of some of those licenses requires them not to discriminate in the service they provide (subject to the law). Accordingly, the retailer must have reasonable grounds to refuse a group (or an individual) entry. Bad behaviour by a member of that group is extremely unlikely to be help as reasonable grounds if the classification of people within that group is based on something as wide as age.

It isn't a ludicrous comparison as discrimination based on age is just as important an issue as any other type of discrimination, including racial.

You've said you've had the backing of the police when challenged in your experience/example. Broadly speaking, discrimination of this sort is a civil rather than criminal matter (although it can be both) so I'm surprised the police got involved. In my experience, when faced with someone who is sober and knows the law, the police run a mile (figuratively speaking) from making these sorts of decisions. Unless there's a public order breach, they simply don't want to get involved.



If everyone was queueing, there would be no issue. Not everyone is being asked to queue. Those who are have been asked to do so based purely on their age. That might not be crime of the century, but it's discriminatory.

I think you need to spend some time in the real world to understand the trials and tribulations of a retailer and how issues as described are dealt with regularly without issue. I hate the way everyone these days likes to play the discrimination card in every possible scenario. It's not nor will it ever be discrimination to protect yourself no matter what guise the attacks take.

As for your Police remark they got involved because I asked them to and having a very close relationship with them meant they were happy to oblige.

[Scouse Hibee]

You think the crime of the century has been committed going by some people on here.

Your the manager of Tesco, you have large groups of kids who want to all come into your shop at once and it's likely some will steal.

Do you A) have a free for all with no order and just let everyone get on with it. B) Have an orderly queuing system so that numbers in the shop can be managed causing less disruption for all.

We queue all the time when places are busy, why is this such an issue. We have established it's not one rule for one school and one for another as Watsons kids don't get out at lunch.

Yes simple really but some folk like to play the discrimination card at every opportunity.

[Just Alf]

You think the crime of the century has been committed going by some people on here.

Your the manager of Tesco, you have large groups of kids who want to all come into your shop at once and it's likely some will steal.

Do you A) have a free for all with no order and just let everyone get on with it. B) Have an orderly queuing system so that numbers in the shop can be managed causing less disruption for all.

We queue all the time when places are busy, why is this such an issue. We have established it's not one rule for one school and one for another as Watsons kids don't get out at lunch.


So your the manager for that shop, you would just let them all in at the same time? Chaos in the shop for 20 or 30 mins over a sensible orderly approach.

It's common sense that's all.

I've re-read the article to make sure I've not got the wrong end of the stick.

Yes, if it was as you've described it would be common sense but it's not.

I totally get that if too many kids get in at once the shop might see a shoplifting increase so they set up a queue system to let in a few at a time (I see that all the time).

The issue here tho is that some teenagers are requested to queue while others (of the same age) are not. That is wrong..... At the peak time (lunchtime of the bigger/nearer school) then yup get the queueing system up and running, but if some kids from the other school happen to rock up at that time they should also join the queue.

Does anyone here genuinely think that's not the way to do it?

PS not picking on you, JBC, I promise! Your posts were just an example of my confusion :greengrin

[heretoday]

I spend half my life in Tesco and in my experience by far the most disruptive element is young children being allowed to run about the aisles by their parents. Accidents are waiting to happen.

[Future17]

I think you need to spend some time in the real world to understand the trials and tribulations of a retailer and how issues as described are dealt with regularly without issue. I hate the way everyone these days likes to play the discrimination card in every possible scenario. It's not nor will it ever be discrimination to protect yourself no matter what guise the attacks take.

As for your Police remark they got involved because I asked them to and having a very close relationship with them meant they were happy to oblige.

Ah, that sounds more like the police I know! :greengrin

I think you need to spend some time in the 21st century if you think the trials and tribulations of a retailer don't include making informed decisions around the legality of what they and/or their staff are doing whilst offering services to the public.

You've said "It's not nor will it ever be discrimination to protect yourself no matter what guise the attacks take". I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, but if you're suggesting you can get away with doing whatever you want under the guise of protecting yourself, you're wrong.

I understand that false or exaggerated claims of discrimination are sometimes made. They are probably more common these days than they use to be. But people saying things like "everyone these days likes to play the discrimination card in every possible scenario" is also becoming more common, despite being false and/or a massive exaggeration in itself.

I don't understand why this situation, of innocent kids being treated differently to innocent adults by a company that accepts both groups as customers, is any different to the same situation where kids and adults and swapped for white people and black people.

Do you not accept that kids can be the victims of discrimination?

[calumhibee1]

Ah, that sounds more like the police I know! :greengrin

I think you need to spend some time in the 21st century if you think the trials and tribulations of a retailer don't include making informed decisions around the legality of what they and/or their staff are doing whilst offering services to the public.

You've said "It's not nor will it ever be discrimination to protect yourself no matter what guise the attacks take". I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, but if you're suggesting you can get away with doing whatever you want under the guise of protecting yourself, you're wrong.

I understand that false or exaggerated claims of discrimination are sometimes made. They are probably more common these days than they use to be. But people saying things like "everyone these days likes to play the discrimination card in every possible scenario" is also becoming more common, despite being false and/or a massive exaggeration in itself.

I don't understand why this situation, of innocent kids being treated differently to innocent adults by a company that accepts both groups as customers, is any different to the same situation where kids and adults and swapped for white people and black people.

Do you not accept that kids can be the victims of discrimination?

This is exactly what I wanted to say but I'm pish at writing so I'm just going to agree with this. Not a chance in hell would you get away with having all black people queued outside a shop, being allowed in four at a time while white people can come and go as they please because proportionately a larger minority of black people had been stealing from your shop than white people. And if you did there would quite rightly be an uproar. This is no different.

[calumhibee1]

So your the manager for that shop, you would just let them all in at the same time? Chaos in the shop for 20 or 30 mins over a sensible orderly approach.

It's common sense that's all.

So if you have 5 different people of one ethnicity stealing from your store over the course of a couple of days would you then make anyone of that ethnicity queue outside and only be allowed in in small groups?

[lyonhibs]

Has it actually been proven that this Tesco systematically and regularly forced Boroughmuir pupils to queue whilst at the same time letting GW pupils in?

I suspect this whole story is a load of bollocks.

[Scouse Hibee]

Remind me to run and claim discrimination the next time I am refused entry to a premises because I am wearing football colours.
Or the next time I am denied entry to a club because there are already too many males inside.
Or when I am refused entry because I am in a large group of males while large groups of females are allowed in.

[hibsbollah]

Boroughmuir High School pupils? need you say more (from a former Broughton Senior Secondary pupil :greengrin )

Like Ian Murray, I went to Burry, even back then Broughton were the enemy :faf:

[Pretty Boy]

What's the rivalry between Broughton and Boroughmuir?

I take it it's to do with being 2 of the state schoole that play rugby?

[hibsbollah]

What's the rivalry between Broughton and Boroughmuir?

I take it it's to do with being 2 of the state schoole that play rugby?

No particular reason, Broughton just deserve it :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

No particular reason, Broughton just deserve it :greengrin


Oh God, you went to Boroughmuir?

[hibsbollah]

Oh God, you went to Boroughmuir?

I bet you went to Broughton:rolleyes:


:greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

What's the rivalry between Broughton and Boroughmuir?

I take it it's to do with being 2 of the state schoole that play rugby?

There was some real rivalry between Broughton and Bellevue (Drummond as was) and I remember the battles that took place in St Marks Park. ockey sticks as weapons anyone?

[calumhibee1]

Remind me to run and claim discrimination the next time I am refused entry to a premises because I am wearing football colours.
Or the next time I am denied entry to a club because there are already too many males inside.
Or when I am refused entry because I am in a large group of males while large groups of females are allowed in.

The first one is a dress code, if you wear football colours to a pub you can go home and change. If you're knocked back from a pub for being male, that is discrimination. Yes, this isn't the crime of the century from Tesco, and I've no idea what the best way to police this would be, but I ask you the same question I asked someone earlier. If say 5 different people all of one ethnicity were to steal from your store in a short period of time, would you then say "all *enter race here* people need to queue outside and will only be allowed access no more than two at a time. White people, enter as normal." Of course you wouldn't, or there would be uproar and no doubt a boycott of your store from many. This isn't any different other than it's there age that's being used as a reason not to allow them to enter the store the same as anyone else, not there race.

[calumhibee1]

What's the rivalry between Broughton and Boroughmuir?

I take it it's to do with being 2 of the state schoole that play rugby?

I left Broughton in 2008, unless things have changed Broughton couldn't be further from a rugby school. Not even sure there was any rugby equipment when I was there! P.E consisted of football, basketball, badmington and swimming at Fettes and the school had football and basketball teams. Was never any egg chasing took place when I was there!

[Moulin Yarns]

I left Broughton in 2008, unless things have changed Broughton couldn't be further from a rugby school. Not even sure there was any rugby equipment when I was there! P.E consisted of football, basketball, badmington and swimming at Fettes and the school had football and basketball teams. Was never any egg chasing took place when I was there!

All changed from my day then. left in the 70s and it was all Rugger then. I still have a sore shoulder from having to tackle the teacher!! went by the nickname of 'mighty mouse' for those that followed rugby. Took up hockey when I got the chance, something to hit back with!!

[Scouse Hibee]

The first one is a dress code, if you wear football colours to a pub you can go home and change. If you're knocked back from a pub for being male, that is discrimination. Yes, this isn't the crime of the century from Tesco, and I've no idea what the best way to police this would be, but I ask you the same question I asked someone earlier. If say 5 different people all of one ethnicity were to steal from your store in a short period of time, would you then say "all *enter race here* people need to queue outside and will only be allowed access no more than two at a time. White people, enter as normal." Of course you wouldn't, or there would be uproar and no doubt a boycott of your store from many. This isn't any different other than it's there age that's being used as a reason not to allow them to enter the store the same as anyone else, not there race.

I refer to your dress code comment,lose the school uniform and you're in then......as simple as that!

[calumhibee1]

I refer to your dress code comment,lose the school uniform and you're in then......as simple as that!

A uniform that they have to wear to school... you don't need to wear football colours.

[McD]

All changed from my day then. left in the 70s and it was all Rugger then. I still have a sore shoulder from having to tackle the teacher!! went by the nickname of 'mighty mouse' for those that followed rugby. Took up hockey when I got the chance, something to hit back with!!


:agree: Very much a rugby school in these days according to my old man, was quite a prestigious thing to represent the school.

[Scouse Hibee]

A uniform that they have to wear to school... you don't need to wear football colours.

So uniform is a dress code then.

[Future17]

Remind me to run and claim discrimination the next time I am refused entry to a premises because I am wearing football colours.

What you wear as clothing is a choice so, in terms of protected characteristics under discrimination legislation, refusing you entry based on what you are wearing would not be discrimination. An exception to that would be when the clothing is related to a protected characteristic such as your religion (i.e. burka, turban, crucifix etc.) and the refusal does not have any other considerations (i.e. health and safety grounds).

Arguing "football is my religion" is unlikely to work. :greengrin


Or the next time I am denied entry to a club because there are already too many males inside.
Or when I am refused entry because I am in a large group of males while large groups of females are allowed in.

That is discrimination and is illegal. If you could prove such an incident happened and was the policy of the owner(s) of the premises, rather than the actions of a rogue employee (or employees), you could take legal action against the owner.

[johnbc70]

Maybe its a tenuous link but this thread tells me a lot in terms of why we might be in the position we are in now in terms of Brexit and the Americans and Trump, we cannot seem to offend anyone these days, people would rather let 100 kids in a shop at once even although it will cause the shop to become chaotic and overcrowded and probably unpleasant for everyone in the shop (including the kids themselves) rather than make them form an orderly and managed queue so that everyone can shop and get what they need with minimum fuss and hassle.

Just use some common sense, it works pretty much all of the time.

[Future17]

Maybe its a tenuous link but this thread tells me a lot in terms of why we might be in the position we are in now in terms of Brexit and the Americans and Trump, we cannot seem to offend anyone these days, people would rather let 100 kids in a shop at once even although it will cause the shop to become chaotic and overcrowded and probably unpleasant for everyone in the shop (including the kids themselves) rather than make them form an orderly and managed queue so that everyone can shop and get what they need with minimum fuss and hassle.

Just use some common sense, it works pretty much all of the time.

You may be right (and I'm not saying the law is always right by any stretch of the imagination) but would common sense not be to make every customer queue when there's the potential for the shop to become overcrowded?

[johnbc70]

You may be right (and I'm not saying the law is always right by any stretch of the imagination) but would common sense not be to make every customer queue when there's the potential for the shop to become overcrowded?

I would suggest it is not the general public that cause the issue so I would let them in, the kids are the root cause of the overcrowding so let them queue. As I say common sense approach, some might not like it but it works.

[Moulin Yarns]

I would suggest it is not the general public that cause the issue so I would let them in, the kids are the root cause of the overcrowding so let them queue. As I say common sense approach, some might not like it but it works.


If the shop is overcrowded then surely, you serve on a first come basis, and let everyone queue. common sense approach, some might not like it but it works in every retail situation in the world.

[calumhibee1]

So uniform is a dress code then.

Aye cause it's realistic to expect them to go home and change to get into the shop that's closest to there school in there half hour lunch break. You didn't answer my question earlier, replace the fact these are kids with them being Asians, or black people and you wouldn't dream of telling them to queue outside, and quite rightly so, would you?

[calumhibee1]

If the shop is overcrowded then surely, you serve on a first come basis, and let everyone queue. common sense approach, some might not like it but it works in every retail situation in the world.

Yup. All the customers are equal, how you can decide that the kids are the reason the shops overcrowded rather than the adults who are wandering around the shop at the same time is a strange one.

[Betty Boop]

Some naive comments on this thread. Tesco in Leith has to make school kids queue, or else they walk out with half the shop. Sure it was the same when the Co-op was there.

[speedy_gonzales]

I think some are missing the point here, it's not that kids are expected to queue, it's that some kids HAVE to queue and some do not,,,, all based on the colour of their blazer. That's the discriminatory part for me.

[Just Alf]

I think some are missing the point here, it's not that kids are expected to queue, it's that some kids HAVE to queue and some do not,,,, all based on the colour of their blazer. That's the discriminatory part for me.
This.

End of etc etc :D


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Future17]

I would suggest it is not the general public that cause the issue so I would let them in, the kids are the root cause of the overcrowding so let them queue. As I say common sense approach, some might not like it but it works.

You've identified the kids as the root cause of the overcrowding because they are arriving in larger numbers around the same time of day. If the store got very crowded when the local mosque emptied, would you make all Muslims queue whilst other religions were allowed in?

It isn't just the kids that are causing the problem. The potential overcrowding problem (and any related issues like an increase in shoplifting) is caused by increased demand at that time of day (i.e. lunchtime). There will likely be an increased number of adults wanting to enter the store at that time of day as well.

The "common sense" solution to any overcrowding problem is to control entry, but there is no legitimate reason to control entry for one group (such as children) whilst allowing another group uncontrolled access. It's not common sense to do that as there's no guarantee it will solve the overcrowding problem.


Some naive comments on this thread. Tesco in Leith has to make school kids queue, or else they walk out with half the shop. Sure it was the same when the Co-op was there.

I've worked in a number of retail jobs and the overwhelming number of shoplifters we identified were adults. Why should all children suffer because some children will shoplift, when some adults will also shoplift?

[Scouse Hibee]

Aye cause it's realistic to expect them to go home and change to get into the shop that's closest to there school in there half hour lunch break. You didn't answer my question earlier, replace the fact these are kids with them being Asians, or black people and you wouldn't dream of telling them to queue outside, and quite rightly so, would you?

If there were Asians or Black people in a group I would treat them exactly the same as I would a group of all white people and tell them to queue why should I act any different?

[Scouse Hibee]

You've identified the kids as the root cause of the overcrowding because they are arriving in larger numbers around the same time of day. If the store got very crowded when the local mosque emptied, would you make all Muslims queue whilst other religions were allowed in?

It isn't just the kids that are causing the problem. The potential overcrowding problem (and any related issues like an increase in shoplifting) is caused by increased demand at that time of day (i.e. lunchtime). There will likely be an increased number of adults wanting to enter the store at that time of day as well.

The "common sense" solution to any overcrowding problem is to control entry, but there is no legitimate reason to control entry for one group (such as children) whilst allowing another group uncontrolled access. It's not common sense to do that as there's no guarantee it will solve the overcrowding problem.



I've worked in a number of retail jobs and the overwhelming number of shoplifters we identified were adults. Why should all children suffer because some children will shoplift, when some adults will also shoplift?

So if your retail premises often suffers at the hands of a group of people do you not think it is reasonable to put some measures in place to ensure you can manage the situation better?

[Future17]

So if your retail premises often suffers at the hands of a group of people do you not think it is reasonable to put some measures in place to ensure you can manage the situation better?

I would 100% agree that retailers should be allowed to put measures in place to prevent them suffering in some way; in this instance, we're ultimately talking about preventing shoplifting.

However, you refer to suffering "at the hands of a group of people". They're not suffering at the hands of a group of people; they're suffering at the hands of individuals. Even if, at specific times, those individuals are all from one identifiable group, it's not a legitimate defence to control that whole group when it contains innocent people.

When I was younger, some kids my age used to shoplift. I'm older now and, based on my experience, far more people my age shoplift than did when I was younger.

[Scouse Hibee]

I would 100% agree that retailers should be allowed to put measures in place to prevent them suffering in some way; in this instance, we're ultimately talking about preventing shoplifting.

However, you refer to suffering "at the hands of a group of people". They're not suffering at the hands of a group of people; they're suffering at the hands of individuals. Even if, at specific times, those individuals are all from one identifiable group, it's not a legitimate defence to control that whole group when it contains innocent people.

When I was younger, some kids my age used to shoplift. I'm older now and, based on my experience, far more people my age shoplift than did when I was younger.

Of course it is justifiable, imagine having your own shop and every day at lunchtime you have so many school children in at one time that you are unable to police their behaviour or identify which of this mass group are stealing. You then decide that if you only allow two in at a time then you can control the situation and help to solve the theft problem. I don't see what you find so hard to understand about that being reasonable.

[speedy_gonzales]

Of course it is justifiable, imagine having your own shop and every day at lunchtime you have so many school children in at one time that you are unable to police their behaviour or identify which of this mass group are stealing. You then decide that if you only allow two in at a time then you can control the situation and help to solve the theft problem. I don't see what you find so hard to understand about that being reasonable.

But that's not what the OP is about, this story is about making one subset of individuals endure restricted access whilst another subset enjoys unfettered access. The ONLY difference between the two is the colour of, and the badge on, their blazer.

[Scouse Hibee]

But that's not what the OP is about, this story is about making one subset of individuals endure restricted access whilst another subset enjoys unfettered access. The ONLY difference between the two is the colour of, and the badge on, their blazer.

But surely the one group have caused bother previously hence the action against them.

[Future17]

Of course it is justifiable, imagine having your own shop and every day at lunchtime you have so many school children in at one time that you are unable to police their behaviour or identify which of this mass group are stealing. You then decide that if you only allow two in at a time then you can control the situation and help to solve the theft problem. I don't see what you find so hard to understand about that being reasonable.

I understand what you're saying, but it's discriminatory and illegal. The reason it's discriminatory and illegal is because you're victimising innocent people (and treating them unfavourably in comparison to other people) based purely on the characteristic they share with the people who are causing a problem; a characteristic they have no control over.

The problem you are describing is that you have too many people in the shop to be able to prevent shoplifting. Would the same situation not occur with too many adults rather than too many children?

[speedy_gonzales]

But surely the one group have caused bother previously hence the action against them.

From what I gather, no bother, just purely a numbers thing.
I'm all for business owners protecting their interests but Tesco's are wrong here. Either make all school kids queue or none at all. To pick one school over another is discrimination,,,nothing else.

[Scouse Hibee]

I understand what you're saying, but it's discriminatory and illegal. The reason it's discriminatory and illegal is because you're victimising innocent people (and treating them unfavourably in comparison to other people) based purely on the characteristic they share with the people who are causing a problem; a characteristic they have no control over.

The problem you are describing is that you have too many people in the shop to be able to prevent shoplifting. Would the same situation not occur with too many adults rather than too many children?

Yes and if you have a regular group of adults who arrive every day and cause problems then you would also put in a system to control them and protect your business.

[Future17]

Yes and if you have a regular group of adults who arrive every day and cause problems then you would also put in a system to control them and protect your business.

So, to refer back to an example from a previous post, if you had a shoplifter who came in to your shop after morning mass with a group from the local church, you'd make all Christians queue whilst other customers came in unrestricted?

[Scouse Hibee]

So, to refer back to an example from a previous post, if you had a shoplifter who came in to your shop after morning mass with a group from the local church, you'd make all Christians queue whilst other customers came in unrestricted?

No but if every week the local group from the church came into my shop and caused havoc and I was unable to identify who was actually doing the thieving,I would take steps to ensure I could control them. If I knew one of them was a shoplifter I would ban him/her from entering anyway.

[Future17]

No but if every week the local group from the church came into my shop and caused havoc and I was unable to identify who was actually doing the thieving,I would take steps to ensure I could control them. If I knew one of them was a shoplifter I would ban him/her from entering anyway.

Exactly. If you knew who was doing the stealing, you would ban the individual.

If you didn't know who was doing the stealing, but you knew the time of day it was happening, you would control the crowd at that time of day. You wouldn't make an assumption about who was doing the stealing based on the demographics of the crowd...because that would be discriminatory.

[High-On-Hibs]

There's EU legislation that actually prohibits this kind of thing from occurring. Tesco are lawfully wrong here. People who are saying that businesses are within their right to do this are actually wrong. It's in direct breach of the equality act to treat a group of people differently than another group.

They are however within their right to act on an individual basis and ban individuals who are caught actively breaking the law on their premises. They can't however tarnish an entire group of people under the same brush based on age/colour/creed/gender/appearance.... etc. They must act on a case by case basis.

[calumhibee1]

There's EU legislation that actually prohibits this kind of thing from occurring. Tesco are lawfully wrong here. People who are saying that businesses are within their right to do this are actually wrong. It's in direct breach of the equality act to treat a group of people differently than another group.

They are however within their right to act on an individual basis and ban individuals who are caught actively breaking the law on their premises. They can't however tarnish an entire group of people under the same brush based on age/colour/creed/gender/appearance.... etc. They must act on a case by case basis.

100%. If they want to control access so they can police shoplifting then that's fine, make people queue outside and let them in 2 at a time or however many you feel you can handle at a time - absolutely nothing wrong with that. However that queue needs to also contain the office workers from round the corner, who by the way, judging from my work anyway, may have a scary amount of people who don't see an issue with scanning through their 80p muffin from the in store bakery as a 30p morning roll on the self serve machine (it's not just kids that steal, adults are just as bad). It should also contain the mum with her infant child and a buggy who's coming to pick up milk, the pensioner who's coming for his papers and also the school kids on their lunch. Not just the school kids.

[calumhibee1]

Some naive comments on this thread. Tesco in Leith has to make school kids queue, or else they walk out with half the shop. Sure it was the same when the Co-op was there.

It's not naive. Nobody is debating the fact that some of these kids might steal things. However the majority of them wouldn't, and to be made to queue outside based on their age, something they have no control over, is discriminatory and illegal. If the store can't handle a crowd of that size then they're quite entitled to make customers queue outside. It should however be all customers.

[silverhibee]

Some naive comments on this thread. Tesco in Leith has to make school kids queue, or else they walk out with half the shop. Sure it was the same when the Co-op was there.

And the same is done at the Tesco at Davidson Mains, the kids are made to queue and they are not allowed to take in there rucksack or any school bag to the shop, the reason being is when they were letting them all in at once there was a lot of shoplifting taking place and it wasn't the mums or grannies who were doing it, Tesco had to do something about it and now they allow a few in at a time and they leave there bags at the front door where the security guy or member of staff deal with the crazy hour at lunch time.
Pretty sure Greggs around the corner also have 2 queues at school lunch time, one for school kids and the other for anyone else.

[Betty Boop]

And the same is done at the Tesco at Davidson Mains, the kids are made to queue and they are not allowed to take in there rucksack or any school bag to the shop, the reason being is when they were letting them all in at once there was a lot of shoplifting taking place and it wasn't the mums or grannies who were doing it, Tesco had to do something about it and now they allow a few in at a time and they leave there bags at the front door where the security guy or member of staff deal with the crazy hour at lunch time.
Pretty sure Greggs around the corner also have 2 queues at school lunch time, one for school kids and the other for anyone else.

:agree:

[Scouse Hibee]

It's not naive. Nobody is debating the fact that some of these kids might steal things. However the majority of them wouldn't, and to be made to queue outside based on their age, something they have no control over, is discriminatory and illegal. If the store can't handle a crowd of that size then they're quite entitled to make customers queue outside. It should however be all customers.


No it shouldn't be all customers.


Age discrimination ban:

The ban does not apply in respect of children aged under 18. This means that people and organisations can continue to provide different services at different rates or on different terms and conditions for children of different ages, or can refuse to serve children – for example, 'no children' hotels can continue as now and newsagents can still restrict the number of children entering their shops.This ban does not cover age discrimination by employers against employees – such discrimination was banned several years ago and this is not affected by the ban in the provision of services.

[Future17]

No it shouldn't be all customers.


Age discrimination ban:

The ban does not apply in respect of children aged under 18. This means that people and organisations can continue to provide different services at different rates or on different terms and conditions for children of different ages, or can refuse to serve children – for example, 'no children' hotels can continue as now and newsagents can still restrict the number of children entering their shops.This ban does not cover age discrimination by employers against employees – such discrimination was banned several years ago and this is not affected by the ban in the provision of services.

Fair play - I did not realise that (quite evidently) and I humbly apologise. :embarrass

Does it say anything about uniforms? :greengrin

[calumhibee1]

No it shouldn't be all customers.


Age discrimination ban:

The ban does not apply in respect of children aged under 18. This means that people and organisations can continue to provide different services at different rates or on different terms and conditions for children of different ages, or can refuse to serve children – for example, 'no children' hotels can continue as now and newsagents can still restrict the number of children entering their shops.This ban does not cover age discrimination by employers against employees – such discrimination was banned several years ago and this is not affected by the ban in the provision of services.

As Future17 says, apologies. I'm very surprised that is the case though, especially all the way up to 18 years of age.

[Scouse Hibee]

Fair play - I did not realise that (quite evidently) and I humbly apologise. :embarrass

Does it say anything about uniforms? :greengrin


No need for apologies mate, some very valid points being raised and a very interesting topic of conversation given the recent bad press. As for uniforms it only says that women over a certain age shouldn't attempt to dress up to please their men :greengrin

[Future17]

No need for apologies mate, some very valid points being raised and a very interesting topic of conversation given the recent bad press. As for uniforms it only says that women over a certain age shouldn't attempt to dress up to please their men :greengrin

And there was me thinking I'd finished my Christmas shopping...:greengrin