That's what I'd do....or just not take them hungry in the first place... or whip round quickly and eat afterwards...or go for the free fruit.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Supermarket shopping - eating before paying
- Thread starter Bald Rick
- Start date
- Status
That's what I'd do....or just not take them hungry in the first place... or whip round quickly and eat afterwards...or go for the free fruit.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
What is it you think is wrong with me then? Am i not allowed to be hungry or bored when i do the shopping?
I go into a restaurant, eat, pay for my food.
Is that against the law too? And which law is it that you are claiming has been broken?
I dont. I find it perfectly normal.
Whichever supermarket brings that policy to the U.K. will automatically win a load business, and the hearts of various wives /partners who find they don’t need to go shopping any more.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
I was a shopkeeper/shop owner for thirty years (technically still am, but that's a different story) and it amazes me that the big supermarket chains didn't clamp down on this abuse when it first became prevalent, fifteen to twenty years ago now. A prominently placed notice 'you must not consume or tamper with goods before they pass into your ownership at the checkout', or words to that effect, would clarify matters. If someone chose to ignore this, or repeated the offence, then banning should be considered at the very least: whether criminal offences took place is a moot point, and not one I'd entertain here. Let's just say, if certain TOCs decided to open supermarkets the magistrates' courts would become even more crowded!
One thing that comes to mind is petrol stations, where (until pay at pump became widespread), you pay after filling up. (In the US, the modus operandi is to pay before you fill up, or, more accurately, not quite fill up as you always have to undershoot to avoid going back to the cashier to get some money back.)
I’d quite like to see a conversation between a petrol station manager and a parent of a child who had started to eat a chocolate bar before paying! “You can’t eat that, you’ve not paid” ... “what about the £80 of diesel I’ve not paid for in my car?”
I’d quite like to see a conversation between a petrol station manager and a parent of a child who had started to eat a chocolate bar before paying! “You can’t eat that, you’ve not paid” ... “what about the £80 of diesel I’ve not paid for in my car?”
trainophile
Established Member
Of course not everyone is honest, as evidenced by the occasional empty wrapper hidden among the shelves. Oh and half drunk bottles of pop.
it’s not something I have ever done in the past, although if it was paid for I would not have a problem with it, however in later life I developed type 2 diabetes and while I manage this very well on one occasion I had a low sugar episode while in a supermarket and ate something ( I forget what now) I had not paid for, but kept the wrapper and paid at the checkout. I guess you could say technically “there’s something seriously wrong” with me but I don’t think that’s what you meant.
Strat-tastic
Established Member
How is free fruit for children not discriminatory to adults on the grounds of age?
What I find more discriminatory is that they keep telling me I’m not allowed to sit in the little orange seat in the trolleys anymore.
Because there are reasonable grounds to price-differentiate your market. A bit like senior citizen's discounts at the barbers.
And the free fruit is conditional on being eaten within the store; you cannot take it away.
That's different to, say, not offering a job to somebody on the grounds of being too young/old.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
An apple from the loose produce section costs about 20p. Go buy one.
Anyway, I (childless) benefit from it as if the child is stuffing their face they are not running around screaming.
An apple from the loose produce section costs about 20p. Go buy one.
Anyway, I (childless) benefit from it as if the child is stuffing their face they are not running around screaming.
And the safety benefit too....
When I was supermarket worker pulling roll cages around, lively children were something of a hazard. Particularly as I was working when 'heelies' were in fashion about a decade or so ago (one kid heelied into a shelf and got knocked out cold)
Strat-tastic
Established Member
Yes! And that as well. This country's going to the dogs
I'd eat it in the store, no worries.
I am tempted to go for it and see if anyone says anything
Yes! And that as well. This country's going to the dogs
I'd eat it in the store, no worries.
I am tempted to go for it and see if anyone says anything
Probably not (not that that makes it OK - you're abusing a gesture of goodwill by the supermarket); our training was only to bother with high-value stuff like razor blades, electronics, etc. Not worth the personal safety risk challenging something low-value.
And our training was not to directly challenge somebody with stealing (simply because it could be a simple misunderstanding of intent) - the guidance was to approach with something like "Can I help you?" or "Is everything OK there?".
I find it fascinating how alarmed people get by something which - assuming the product is paid for - is entirely harmless - I'd recommend that they never watch the news, as some of the things on there might drive them into an early grave. As for banning people, what on earth would a supermarket gain from banning someone who ate a KitKat that they subsequently pay for as part of their £100 shop?
I don't see there as being a moral objection at all personally. Why would it be 'wrong'? Nobody is losing anything from this that I can see, while the customer clearly gains increased satisfaction.
I do however see a practical one. By eating the food before reaching the checkout abd scanning it in, somebody might think that one is intending not to pay for something even if one actually is, so I wouldn't do this because of the risk of being challenged by security and the resulting potential for embarrassment.
Really it isn't a matter for moral standards at all, it's simply business between the customer and the supermarket. If they're both satisfied, the opinions of others are fairly irrelevant.
I do however see a practical one. By eating the food before reaching the checkout abd scanning it in, somebody might think that one is intending not to pay for something even if one actually is, so I wouldn't do this because of the risk of being challenged by security and the resulting potential for embarrassment.
Really it isn't a matter for moral standards at all, it's simply business between the customer and the supermarket. If they're both satisfied, the opinions of others are fairly irrelevant.
Last edited:
jonty14
Member
I agree with you. If it paid for in the end, where is the problem. More see things going on in the world to worry about this.
Strat-tastic
Established Member
But is it theft? Is it OK for 17-year olds to help themselves?
Don't know. Ask a lawyer.
is what theft?
Strat-tastic
Established Member
No, I am garnering general opinion from this forum's members
Do please keep up
scotrail158713
Established Member
What does age have to do with it?
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I don't believe it is harmless. On a moral level, the fact is that the goods you are eating do not belong to you. They belong to the supermarket until you've paid for them. I can't speak for anyone else, but my own moral standards involve respecting ownership of property. I realise that may sound a bit high-horsey, but there are real practical issues that if you start blurring moral standards because it seems harmless in a particular instance, it tends to encourage people to start ignoring those same moral standards in other cases where it does do harm. For example, for some people, it may be a small step from 'it doesn't matter if I intend to pay for it' to 'Oooops... I did intend to pay for it but when I got to the checkout, I forgot. Well, the supermarket's big. No harm done really' and so on
(I know a couple of people have mentioned restaurants where you pay after eating - I'd argue that's different because in those restaurants, there is a clear understanding that the restaurant has chosen of its own free will to supply the goods and to allow them to be consumed prior to payment. That's not the case for most shops.)
And in practical terms, there are a couple of issues. It potentially makes it harder to maintain standards of hygiene - probably not to the level at which it would be dangerous, but certainly to the level at which the shop may be slightly less pleasant to other customers. Perhaps more seriously, I would imagine it makes it harder to detect real crime. How do you know that someone eating something really does intend to pay for it later on? And if someone passes the checkout without having paid for something, then the evidence is a lot clearer if that something is in their bag than it would be if that something is in their stomach!
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
There's a difference between 'being satisfied' and 'don't want to kick up a fuss because, even if we're in the right, the publicity would be awful so it's just not worth it'
Strat-tastic
Established Member
Because it's free fruit for children.
Can I politely suggest there are better uses of time of people on this than debating the moral rights and wrongs of a 17 year old eating a banana?
Like most things in life, this is a grey area - there is no 'black or white' answer.
Anyway, I've already stated that it is reasonable and legal to age discriminate on matters such as this.
Emd of discussion.
Strat-tastic
Established Member
May I suggest, politely or otherwise, that you gracefully back out of a discussion you're not interested in and leave others to contribute as they wish. Who appointed you as arbiter here?
- Status