Having adequate security is a cost of doing business like any other. Sainsbury's should invest in this by installing adequate cctv that allows them to tackle problem customers, teenage or otherwise.

Sainsburys have always had problems with certain Schoolchildren. I recall seeing a couple of teenage boys in there one day who took a can of beer each and walked around drinking it then dumped the empty cans on a shelf. I reported it to a security man who collared them and made them pick up the cans and take them to a checkout and pay for them.

Back in the days of MacDonalds FH Boys and Sydenham Girls were banned in there at lunchtimes. We were in there one day when a whole crowd of them came in and were being generally disruptive. Presumably the school was informed as the school minibus turned up with about 6 teachers and the kids scattered, hiding in the toilets etc. they were rounded up and taken back to school. I presume the ban was imposed by the school as well as McD's due to the reaction.

So BCM, Sainsbury should take it on the chin then. I cannot understand how you can turn this round and make Sainsbury out to be the bad guy when all they are trying to do is protect their interests. More Cctv and security! Really! The are at least three security guards and a load of Cctv. That costs, how do Sainsbury recoup the costs, by increasing prices. We pay for that.

I really don't understand the mindset of someone who blames Sainsbury because school kids steal from their store.

.

But that's not what I'm doing. I'm blaming Sainsbury's for tarring an entire demographic with the same brush because of a few irresponsible people and blanket banning them all. If you replace "school kids" with "women" or "black people" would you still be saying Sainsbury's was acting reasonably because they found out a few people from those demographics were regularly shop lifting? I really doubt you would. Now please tell me why it is any different.

This post was last modified: 11-12-2015 09:57 AM by Bcm.

Sainsbury's wouldn't turn away the business without good reason.

Many inner London schools are nothing more than zoos. Once the animals are out of the cage, the keepers lose control and aren't really responsible any more.

Sainsbury's can exclude who they like. They also need to retain the business of their decent customers, who may desert them if the shopping experience is interrupted by bad behaviour and is unpleasant.

In response to an earlier question, I think the kids from St.Dunstans are taken by a fleet of Chelsea tractors to Waitrose in Beckenham to do their shoplifting.

BCM, dont forget to add disabled, refugees and any other group to that. Add a couple of kittens whilst you are at it. Despite your hand wringing school kids will still be stealing and as a result a large amount of other school kids will be punished as a result. So, I will ask you again, what should Sainsburys do (given we have already established that security and CCTV are present in the store)?

Guys, guys, why is this getting so heated? One's position on this doesn't have to be binary. It's possible to sympathise Sainsburys' position AND feel bad for the decent kids who are disadvantaged by these bans. Expressing sympathy for one side does not imply condemning the other.

Jolly = bit harsh your post - stating that all children in schools are like packs of animals - maybe you speak form past experience when you were a child

If you believe that those school children should be able to vote; drive; buy alcohol, pornography and cigarettes; and to be sentenced to crimes like an adult, then an argument that they should not be able to be excluded as a demographic stands up.

It's a shame that some children will suffer, but it is generally only suffering to the extent that they cannot buy snacks from Sainsbury's.

In defence of all shop owners, the problem will child shoplifters is that it is more complicated to search and process them than adults and even if proved will probably result in just a warning.

So your robust rebuttal to my question is an attempt at mockery.

I think Sainsbury's should invest more in security and proactively work with schools to bring those found to be shoplifting to account. High definition CCTV cameras that give full coverage to a store are not expensive, the cost of storing the collected data is also not expensive - certainly not for a corporation of Sainbury's scale. If kids found shoplifting from Sainbury's were carted in front of their respective school's head master each time and sanctioned, they'd soon think twice about it.

Totally agree with this - I do sympathise with Sainsbury's, but surely there are other, more helpful roads to take rather than a blanket ban? By banning teenagers surely Sainsbury's is merely making the problem someone else's without such a policy in place. Thieves are going to thieve. Or should we ban all teenagers from all stores just in case? Is that the way we want to go as a society?

This post was last modified: 11-12-2015 01:17 PM by Bcm.

Why? Sainsburys is a business, not a charity or organisation with social responsibility. Schoolkids only spend pennies and if the cost of accepting them into the store vastly outweighs the profit that can be made, what's the incentive?

Much easier to just ban them, let the school and/or society do the donkey work of correction, then review the ban (or not) at some point in the future.

Big businesses should have social responsibility. Sainsbury's tries to portray itself as a pillar of the community all the time. Even from a purely business point of view the incentive could be to not alienate your future customer base if nothing else.

But it's probably not just about shoplifting. As has been said, even if Sainsburys catch them red handed, it's just a time consuming exercise for their staff to process the event, which will ultimately lead to nothing - perhaps a police caution and a few quid compensation from the parents.

It's more likely to be a behaviour issue. Packs of teenage boys from any school can be rowdy - South London comprehensives even worse. These kids are a nuisance wherever they go, shopping centres, public transport street corners, whatever. Sainsburys can't be dealing with that and their proper customers don't want to be exposed to it. As before, it's time consuming and their staff don't have the authority to manage it. There's no sanction a shop worker can apply in response to bad behaviour that is meaningful, unlike a parent, teacher or police officer, all of whom have some bite, in the appropriate circumstances.

As for alienating a future customer base... not sure. I don't think there are branches of Sainsburys "inside".

Received from Sainsburys Forest Hill:

Thanks for forwarding that post admin - i would say that on a whole - most school children are well behaved - were we not all schoolchildren at some point and did silly things that we would not be proud of now

for Jolly to tarnish all schoolchildren as hoodlums is the same as saying all whites are members of the KKK or all muslims are terrorists

That's a pretty good response from Sainsbury's, hard to argue against and good to see they have approached the school which I believe is the correct approach.

In other news Donald Trump has called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on".

Perhaps he is not really "tarnishing all Muslims with the same brush" (certainly looks that way) however he has a duty of care to 300 million Americans to ensure that antisocial behaviour from any member of the public is not tolerated.

I hope that Sainsbury's can work out a better solution to this problem, as I do not believe that the current situation is an 'amicable' resolution.

Michael, I like an analogy as much as anyone, but that's really not a great one. We all know the point you are making, and it was made previously by BCM, but the instances are hardly comparable in any aspect.

As ever with these things, lots of must do better but no real practical solutions.

No-one is saying this is a great situation but what is the answer? What is the better solution than Sainsburys trying to engage the school to help with the issue to allow school children access again? I'm sure they'd love people's suggestions.

OakR,
You are right, approaching the school is a sensible course of action, especially if Sainsbury's were able to provide CCTV images which should make the individuals responsible possible to identify within a school community.

The next course of action (if not the first) when anybody is subjected to anti-social behaviour or robbery, would be to speak to the police, and that may well include the Safer Schools’ Officer, as apparently arranged by the school.

Banning a whole group of people based on their voluntary/involuntary association with others in a group which includes the perpetrator, is not a fair course of action. I didn't like it when I was banned from various shops in Forest Hill because I went to the school, and I don't see why I should like it any more just because I'm a little older.

Small shops often have signs that request 'no more than 3 children at once', which seems perfectly reasonable but wouldn't work for a supermarket, but then small shops can't afford to employ security guards to deal with anti-social behaviour and shop-lifting.

I'm sure that there is a much longer history of the actions of offenders and the Sainsbury's management team, which I wouldn't expect them to be able to detail. And I don't find it acceptable that Sainsbury's staff or customers should be subjected to abuse or anti-social behaviour. But I feel that banning a whole school is also, in it's own way, anti-social.

I'm very pleased to hear that the store manager is reviewing the position, and I'm sure he will take account of feelings expressed on this forum.