News0 min ago
Following on from Theft by Consumption
14 Answers
I read with interest the debate about the rights and wrongs. Personally, I think it is wrong.
However, on Sunday morning I went out for a long bike ride. After 20 miles I stopped at a petrol station with a Tescos Express and went to the chiller cabinet to get myself a bottle of water,
I was pretty knackered and since there was a queue, I opened the bottle and started to consume the water. Once I got to the front of the queue, I closed the top of the bottle, gave it to the cashier, apologised that I had started drinking it. She scanned it and I paid for it and walked out.
It differs from the banana incident in Sainsburys because:
a) The product in question had a bar code
b) I had finished my shopping and was in the queue
c) I had no other items to purchase
Is this acceptable behaviour?
However, on Sunday morning I went out for a long bike ride. After 20 miles I stopped at a petrol station with a Tescos Express and went to the chiller cabinet to get myself a bottle of water,
I was pretty knackered and since there was a queue, I opened the bottle and started to consume the water. Once I got to the front of the queue, I closed the top of the bottle, gave it to the cashier, apologised that I had started drinking it. She scanned it and I paid for it and walked out.
It differs from the banana incident in Sainsburys because:
a) The product in question had a bar code
b) I had finished my shopping and was in the queue
c) I had no other items to purchase
Is this acceptable behaviour?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oneeyedvic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Probably, because you knew you shouldn't really do it.
The issue I had with the other questioner was that she felt it was acceptable and she felt that the Store Manager was out of order. It was therefore a moral issue, not a legal issue.
Then the other thread got hijacked off-track by those seeking to establish if theft had occurred.
It never was an issue of theft for me - but of morals and behaviour.
The issue I had with the other questioner was that she felt it was acceptable and she felt that the Store Manager was out of order. It was therefore a moral issue, not a legal issue.
Then the other thread got hijacked off-track by those seeking to establish if theft had occurred.
It never was an issue of theft for me - but of morals and behaviour.
You are standing in front of the payment counter, conspicuously holding a bottle which, as you say, can still be scanned (inlike a banana, which can no longer be weighed).
Technically, you are in the wrong ...
... but only the most anal person would complain about what you were doing.
And if they did, you would laugh at them, get to the front of the queue, pay for the bottle, and laugh at them some more as you were leaving.
=0)
ps. 20 miles ... quite a decent ride ... well done you !!
Technically, you are in the wrong ...
... but only the most anal person would complain about what you were doing.
And if they did, you would laugh at them, get to the front of the queue, pay for the bottle, and laugh at them some more as you were leaving.
=0)
ps. 20 miles ... quite a decent ride ... well done you !!
I can see where you are coming from Buildersmate but the law in this country has built up over centuries to cover all aspects of immorality and wrongdoing. There are situations where the moral and legal aspect is not clear-cut and I believe this was one of them. I do not condone petty theft. Theft is theft in my book but I have been shopping with very small children and I know the pressures and problems which face a young mother. So taking all that into account I made the judgement that there was no intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of the banana of either the item or its value. It seemed likely to me that no crime had been committed and since the lady intended to pay for the item, not really a moral breakdown either.
Having said all that, I do hope the lady made it clear to her child (as I did to mine) that it is wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you, it is called stealing.
Having said all that, I do hope the lady made it clear to her child (as I did to mine) that it is wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you, it is called stealing.
I agree you'd have to bit uptight to complain overly about it, I don't eat things in the shop before I've paid for it but that's just me.
But shops do lose a fortune due to these actions, if I worked in a shop I'd keep my powder dry until they reached the checkout, once they've paid for the item you have to admit no trip no foul.
Harking back to the earlier question that inspired this one, I do work with the public and they can be truly horrible, I sympathise with any shop worker faced with that dilemma, because if they don't have the money, or it was their intention not to pay for it (by discarding the item) because you don't know until they try (it takes all sorts) and, when it does, it means only one thing.
A fight.
But shops do lose a fortune due to these actions, if I worked in a shop I'd keep my powder dry until they reached the checkout, once they've paid for the item you have to admit no trip no foul.
Harking back to the earlier question that inspired this one, I do work with the public and they can be truly horrible, I sympathise with any shop worker faced with that dilemma, because if they don't have the money, or it was their intention not to pay for it (by discarding the item) because you don't know until they try (it takes all sorts) and, when it does, it means only one thing.
A fight.
Diasy ...
I think in the Sainsbury's case, there was actually a theft.
The test is not whether you intend to "deprive the rightful owner of the banana of either the item or its value"
It is ...
Permanently depriving the owner of the item (yes)
Doing an act inconsistent with the rights of the owner (yes)
(At the time of consumption, the shop was still the owner)
Intending to reimburse the owner later is not a defence (unless you're an MP, apparently).
So drinking the water was also, technically, theft.
But supermarkets have a massive problem with people eating their food, down the aisles, out of sight.
Petrol stations don't have such a problem.
I think in the Sainsbury's case, there was actually a theft.
The test is not whether you intend to "deprive the rightful owner of the banana of either the item or its value"
It is ...
Permanently depriving the owner of the item (yes)
Doing an act inconsistent with the rights of the owner (yes)
(At the time of consumption, the shop was still the owner)
Intending to reimburse the owner later is not a defence (unless you're an MP, apparently).
So drinking the water was also, technically, theft.
But supermarkets have a massive problem with people eating their food, down the aisles, out of sight.
Petrol stations don't have such a problem.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.