SE23 Forum

So Deano, what should Sainsbury do? I have asked two others who feel Sainsbury are out of.order and nothing. Please tell us what Sainsbury Should do and not what they shouldn't!

Quite an hard one really, as Sainsburys nor any retail outlet can let people/children walk around stealing - think the only option is to ban all - yes the good always suffer when the bad do things wrong

Well, they could employ more security staff? They could limit how many are in the shop at any one time? They could offer to do their shopping for them? None of this is beyond the wit of man. Just costs them more.....

I agree with the more anti-PC peeps on this one. This isn't a new thing at all. And, to disagree with a previous poster, this isn't a 'South London' thing or a 'boy' thing either. I went to a North London all-girl convent school many moons ago and quite frankly we were a) absolutely out of control most the time, b) banned from most shops in the local areas, and c) didn't give a s**t about the fact.
If anyone thinks that schoolkids are crying into their weetabix about this every morning, think again. They don't care! And neither should you. What a very small deal this is, causing such a big kerfuffle. A big example of the current entitlement culture, as far as I can see.

Deano, it costs US more, not Sainsburys!

Broadly I think Sainsbury's have acted absolutely correctly. The reply on here from the manager was very good. This really isn't their issue. I think they should speak to the school and any other schools whose children may also get involved in this sort of activity. But without school supervision or even engagement, I think a total ban is the only solution - at least for a period ie a term or 3 months.

I can't honestly think why most school children would want or need to go to Sainsbury's. Lunch is available at school or can be brought from home or bought in other shops - ditto breakfast. Shopping on way home for Mum? Well go home, get changed and go back or go to another shop.

Sainsbury's already have more than adequate security and plenty of staff around. And they are a commercial business not a charity or after school club. I think we should all butt out and leave them to run their business as they see fit, as long as they do it legally and safely.

It might be low priority to the police, as perhaps they feel this is just a stage that 99% will grow out of. Or perhaps there are no funds.

But for some children an intervention now could save a lot of money later and I think they have a duty at the very least to formally log this behaviour when the offender can be easily identified via their school uniform and banks of cameras.

So I agree that it would be nice to know what their policy is and it might help explain this extraordinary measure taken by the manager.

I feel sorry for the majority of pupils who attend Forest Hill Boys who sensibly use the store who are being discriminated by a minority of irresponsible people who wear the uniform.

Yet, while it's not ideal, I understand the Sainsbury's manager's reason for going down this route. His priority is the welfare of his staff and customers who have the right to work without fear of intimidation of poorly behaved teenagers.

As mentioned, if these pupils wish to shop in the store, there's nothing stopping them from going home, getting changed and then go in the supermarket.

Just for the record, Mr. Robin Banks, the ban did initially apply to St. Dunstan's boys as well, so what the manager says is not entirely correct.

I don't believe that the answer should be a blanket ban on anyone, named school or not, for reasons that other posters before me have more eloquently put.

I believe that it is for Sainsbury's to sort out their own security - perhaps a limit on the numbers allowed in at any time, with better CCTV and toughened security, rather than the apparently ineffectual guards they do have, who bully the soft targets (who are actually not stealing anything) and take no action against the real offenders.

St Dunstan's boys in a Sainsburys...whatever next.

Were all St Dunstans' children banned or just the boys? Because that's a whole other can of worms...

Yes it does. My repy was tongue in cheek but I was thinking back to what used to be said about Sainsburys - that its true purpose was to keep the riff raff out of Waitrose.

My reply was to shzl400 who said 'St Dunstans boys'. Given that it's a co-ed school, my question was a genuine one.

Yes it would be discriminatory to just exclude the boys.

Yes, indeed, it was just the boys. They initially banned FH Boys, who would deny that they were from that school, so they banned all school boys, with the excuse that they could not tell one from the other, particularly with coats/hoodies over the top.

As noted, they said they were considering extending the ban to Sydenham Girls (and thereby by extension to all girls).

Indeed, a whole can of worms.

Perhaps when they all grow up they will remember the chain which excluded them and shop elsewhere? Corner shops have had to impose limitations on perceived threats to their livelihood as far back as I can remember but this is the first instance I have noticed of it for a supermarket.