Dad ejected from Tesco for carrying daughter
Discussion
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/Displ...
I read this in the Metro this morning and found the above article (I cannot find the Metro one online).
Personally I do not see the big deal. He was not 'ejected'; he was merely told by security that he could not shop with his daughter on his shoulders. I can see Tesco's point - bottle of wine dropped on the floor, dad slips, daughter smacks head on a hard terrazzo floor. I can just see the compensation claim. Is he really that inconvenienced by his daughter having to get down and walk?
The Metro article has some other examples of reasons for refusing entry:
No pyjamas - Done to death recently. Supermarkets are full of chavs who can't be arsed getting dressed. I don't see the problem with making them put some fecking clothes on.
No School bags or blazers - This is being enforced at a store in Halesowen; kids have to leave their bags and blazers at the entrance. This sort of policy is not unique to Tesco. Local newsagents have been enforcing policies like maximum 2 school children at any time for years with no complaints.
No bikinis - This is not Bondi Beach. I am not opposed to scantily clad beach beauties, but in reality it is big fat biffers with their bacon-belts hanging over their kecks.
No bare feet - Hippy t
t who has not worn shoes for seven years has been turned away from several shops. Suppose a bit of glass left from that broken bottle dropped earlier cuts open his foot - who will be getting sued? I can't say I particularly want to see some crusty fker walking about in their stinking bare feet whilst I am shopping.
No bare torsos - A Manchester store turned away a father and son when they attempted to walk in bare chested. So? What is the problem with putting on some fecking clothes?
I read this in the Metro this morning and found the above article (I cannot find the Metro one online).
Personally I do not see the big deal. He was not 'ejected'; he was merely told by security that he could not shop with his daughter on his shoulders. I can see Tesco's point - bottle of wine dropped on the floor, dad slips, daughter smacks head on a hard terrazzo floor. I can just see the compensation claim. Is he really that inconvenienced by his daughter having to get down and walk?
The Metro article has some other examples of reasons for refusing entry:
No pyjamas - Done to death recently. Supermarkets are full of chavs who can't be arsed getting dressed. I don't see the problem with making them put some fecking clothes on.
No School bags or blazers - This is being enforced at a store in Halesowen; kids have to leave their bags and blazers at the entrance. This sort of policy is not unique to Tesco. Local newsagents have been enforcing policies like maximum 2 school children at any time for years with no complaints.
No bikinis - This is not Bondi Beach. I am not opposed to scantily clad beach beauties, but in reality it is big fat biffers with their bacon-belts hanging over their kecks.
No bare feet - Hippy t
t who has not worn shoes for seven years has been turned away from several shops. Suppose a bit of glass left from that broken bottle dropped earlier cuts open his foot - who will be getting sued? I can't say I particularly want to see some crusty fker walking about in their stinking bare feet whilst I am shopping.No bare torsos - A Manchester store turned away a father and son when they attempted to walk in bare chested. So? What is the problem with putting on some fecking clothes?
Oh please think of the kids! This is the sort of annoying twunt who's little darling = annoying sh8t who gets on the train (usually at Earlsfield) and stands on the seats or kicks you whilst you're trying to maintain some sort of dignity on your journey home.
Good don't shop there then - like we give a toss.
Good don't shop there then - like we give a toss.
Edited by fido on Tuesday 9th February 11:29
fido said:
Oh please think of the kids! This is the sort of annoying twunt who's little darling = annoying sh8t who gets on the train (usually at Earlsfield) and stands on the seats or kicks you whilst you're trying to maintain some sort of dignity on your journey home.
Good don't shop there then - like we give a toss.
And then when his kid hurts her foot on the chair, she comes to me to sue the rail company. I have to fend off these people!Good don't shop there then - like we give a toss.
Edited by fido on Tuesday 9th February 11:29
The story seems to just be a bit of the currently fashionable supermarket bashing (no - I've no involvement with any of them, apart from giving them my money)
The local supermarket allows me to carry my children loose in a trolley and on the odd occasion all four in a single trolley. And spin them in an otherwise empty isle. I've carried one on my shoulders which makes life easier as they can't run about and play with things when they're up there. I've had one in there in bare feet because he kept removing his shoes & socks - no-one complained, some thought it was cute. It taught him floors are cold and shoes & socks are good.
Sounds like a security-guard issue rather than a supermarket issue.
The local supermarket allows me to carry my children loose in a trolley and on the odd occasion all four in a single trolley. And spin them in an otherwise empty isle. I've carried one on my shoulders which makes life easier as they can't run about and play with things when they're up there. I've had one in there in bare feet because he kept removing his shoes & socks - no-one complained, some thought it was cute. It taught him floors are cold and shoes & socks are good.
Sounds like a security-guard issue rather than a supermarket issue.
I think the other issue is that she is 6 years old. She's not a little toddler who's going to run off and start demolishing the place. I would like to think that a 6 year is capable of walking round a supermarket without having to be carried. I can just picture her being carried absolutely everywhere, because walking makes her tired and daddy is her little brum brum. Oh dear.
JQ said:
I think the other issue is that she is 6 years old. She's not a little toddler who's going to run off and start demolishing the place. I would like to think that a 6 year is capable of walking round a supermarket without having to be carried. I can just picture her being carried absolutely everywhere, because walking makes her tired and daddy is her little brum brum. Oh dear.
Like to think that, hmm wouldn't we all alas not much chance of that, rarely do parents maange to keep their sproglets under control for the entire shop.Ganglandboss said:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/Displ...
I read this in the Metro this morning and found the above article (I cannot find the Metro one online).
Personally I do not see the big deal. He was not 'ejected'; he was merely told by security that he could not shop with his daughter on his shoulders. I can see Tesco's point - bottle of wine dropped on the floor, dad slips, daughter smacks head on a hard terrazzo floor. I can just see the compensation claim. Is he really that inconvenienced by his daughter having to get down and walk?
Couldn't agree more!I read this in the Metro this morning and found the above article (I cannot find the Metro one online).
Personally I do not see the big deal. He was not 'ejected'; he was merely told by security that he could not shop with his daughter on his shoulders. I can see Tesco's point - bottle of wine dropped on the floor, dad slips, daughter smacks head on a hard terrazzo floor. I can just see the compensation claim. Is he really that inconvenienced by his daughter having to get down and walk?
Ganglandboss said:
No pyjamas - Done to death recently. Supermarkets are full of chavs who can't be arsed getting dressed. I don't see the problem with making them put some fecking clothes on.
In my [whisper]student[/whisper] days I may have, in the dead of night wandered a few yards across campus to a computer lab in my PJs once or twice, and I'll happily admit that on a lazy day at home I may well lounge around in the PJs till mid afternoon but going out in public, in the daytime? That's just plain laziness.Ganglandboss said:
No School bags or blazers - This is being enforced at a store in Halesowen; kids have to leave their bags and blazers at the entrance. This sort of policy is not unique to Tesco. Local newsagents have been enforcing policies like maximum 2 school children at any time for years with no complaints.
I know why they do this - it's an effective way of cutting down on shoplifting. It would have made me avoid the place though simply because I would have been concerned at the security of my possessions left behind. I'm sure looking at the bottom line they will reduce their losses to shoplifting scrotes by more than they lose the custom from a few honest kids that turn away.Ganglandboss said:
No bikinis - This is not Bondi Beach. I am not opposed to scantily clad beach beauties, but in reality it is big fat biffers with their bacon-belts hanging over their kecks.
Damn you, I just ate and now you have to give me that image!Ganglandboss said:
No bare feet - Hippy tt who has not worn shoes for seven years has been turned away from several shops. Suppose a bit of glass left from that broken bottle dropped earlier cuts open his foot - who will be getting sued? I can't say I particularly want to see some crusty fker walking about in their stinking bare feet whilst I am shopping.
Nail + Headt who has not worn shoes for seven years has been turned away from several shops. Suppose a bit of glass left from that broken bottle dropped earlier cuts open his foot - who will be getting sued? I can't say I particularly want to see some crusty fker walking about in their stinking bare feet whilst I am shopping.Ganglandboss said:
No bare torsos - A Manchester store turned away a father and son when they attempted to walk in bare chested. So? What is the problem with putting on some fecking clothes?
I don't know why but I've always found the whole "bare chested" thing particularly offensive, possibly because of my own rather inferior physique or maybe just because it's so damn council. FamilyGuy said:
The local supermarket allows me to carry my children loose in a trolley.
I was asked not to do this with my three year old the other month by Security and the Manager, against their 'policy'. It's fair enough but did seem a bit silly. He was standing just in front of me, back to me and had both hands on the sides. So I had him contained and within hands reach for when he wasn't paying attention on the turns. Instead I had to drag him kicking and screaming around the place for the next thirty minutes. Then last week whilst he was happily walking next to me, hand in hand, some shelf stacker knocked him flat with a stocking trolley!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff