To have swapped the swede?

[Swedesareneeps]

DS has ASD and I screwed his noodle this morning by not having available for his lunchbox The Correct Midmorning School Snack of a lump of raw swede.

So on the way home from school I stopped in at the poncy local shop and bought the only swede they had. It cost £1.05, which seemed a lot for food you usually feed to sheep, but autism I love him. Especially seeing as it had a very small crossection cut off the side (50p size) and the start of a brown bit within that, that would need to be cut off before DS would see it.

I'd also failed to buy DH's preferred cereal option but poncy local shop didn't have it so I took a long cut home to stop in Sainsbury's local to see if they had it, because I love him too (and as we all know true love is varyingly oral sex or buying preferred cereal - I'll leave it to you which leaves a better taste in your mouth). They had a better selection of Swedes at a slightly more reasonable 80p.

Would I have been unreasonable to have swapped my £1.05 swede for another at 80p? It wasn't any bigger but maybe a little better.

What if, hypothetically, OP had bought a pristine swede at the poncey shop but decided (for reasons unknown to anyone but herself) that a manky one from Sainsburys would better suit her purposes? Would it still be theft if she stole the worse swede and 'paid' for it with one that was both more expensive and better?

(My autocorrect keeps trying to capitalise Swede - that would be a very different scenario!)

Yes it would.
You can’t just take things even if you replace them unless you have the owners permission.

Legality or otherwise aside... would you normally have an organic swede about your person when you go into Sainsburys or was the substitution premeditated OP?

In my experience a swede is a hefty substantial object and not one I carry around for recreation...

When I wandered into the shop I was carrying it in the manner of the Jesus Quintana, just daring someone to ask me what I was doing with that swede. That'd probably read a lot better with a capital s.

But at what point does "the same" thing become different?

I mean, with swedes, they're pretty distinctive as individual vegetables. But what if I had a can of Coke. And I took it into a shop and swapped it for a different can of Coke? Is that stealing?

There's no numeric difference, no quality difference and no intent to deprive the shop of their income from the can of coke.

And what if I just gave the can of Coke to the shop? Maybe I thought I wanted it but decided that tooth rotting fat juice had lost its buzz for me so I go into a shop along the road and leave it there in an attempt for it not to be wasted? Is that still nonconsensual barter, when there's no take in return?

Readers, I did not swap the swede. I ended up in the place where the only reason I wanted to swap it was because it was a (ridiculously) expensive, inferior swede. If it hadn't been a wee bit manky I wouldn't have wanted to swap it, so because it wasn't equivalent it felt wrong.

Attention seeking nonsense then 'reader'.

No wonder you ignored the question for so long.

I think this is one of my favourite ever threads.

Although the finger/bum/ice cream scenario has me concerned...

The cereal is for DH. I did read it twice because I too thought What The Actual Fuck. But it's fine.

She lives in Scotland, where it is NOT commonly called swede. That was my point! (It was also a joke, I do not actually going round branding people unreasonable due to their choice of how to describe vegetables).

Turnip lanterns in Topsy and Tim.

The story continues.

'Non-consensual bartering' 😂

Strange thread. OK I'll bite. I got from it attention seeking for your wanting to push boundaries of whats legal and whats not. The above verbosity appears to confirm that. So you've got a bit of wanting to challenge professional perspectives on whats permissable and argue about it. Mild shock value. Little bit of a thrill. Showing off that you are not a thief because you are replacing like with like. That sort of thing.

Legally, the item on the shelf is an invitation to treat, an offer to sell the displayed item for an agreed price. Removing said item and replacing it with another does not cause ownership to change because the item has not been sold or otherwise transferred to the new owner. You have had no contact with Sainsburys to get them to agree to this. You bought the item and retain ownership. I'm sure you are aware of all of this. When you took the new swede that was theft because you didn't pay the agreed price and had no agreement with the seller to exchange it. It is a red herring that the old swede cost more.

Odd that you are in Scotland and refer to a swede but the law is similar here in all vital aspects.

Mild concerns about how much this swede has been handled before being placed for sale in another shop. What an odd thing to do. There, are you satisfied?

Please don't take any more items from other shops and swap them about.

I honestly don't take ideas for exam questions from here

I used to eat all my veg raw (including swede) as a child. Also used to nick chips before they went in the fryer.
I think it's because my mum boiled the shit out of them.

No.

Why would you even think that's ok?

Super-entitled.

But what if I had a can of Coke. And I took it into a shop and swapped it for a different can of Coke? Is that stealing?

you don't normally get criminal law exam questions mixed up with civil law ones

But yes, it would be stealing. There is a intention to permanently deprive of the item for sale. The items are not identical because the for sale item in the store will have been through various supply chain checks which guarantee its authenticity, date, safety, etc.. Theres been enough examples of tampering with supermarket food items to show why this is also unacceptable.

This thread is revealing in undreamed-of ways.

From a food safety and compliance perspective, they are not ‘the same’ thing. Yes, they’re both swedes, but they’re likely produced by different growers, having had different auditing procedures and possibly different inputs to get there. If the swede were swapped and caused an issue, the traceability and product complaints would backfire onto the grower of the shop’s other swedes and have enormous implications on their trading. All ‘what ifs’ but important to note not all swedes are created equally.

So tesco have been lying to us all calling it a turnip when it’s a swede?

Not sure how I feel about this, initially thought it was stealing. But then, if you had bought both, then decided to return one, but accidentally returned the wrong one (they both look almost identical and maybe you didn’t pay attention to the specific details of the swede) then this doesn’t seem like stealing anymore!

I’m loving the subversiveness of it. It’s called a turnip in Ireland too. You can imagine my confusion coming to London.
My only complaint is that you haven’t commented enough on the thread OP. I like your style and wit.

I am Scottish and grew up eating turnip (aka swede to you English) reasonably regularly but nothing prepared me for the Christmas we spent with family friends who had a turnip farm. They'd prepared it 4 different ways, mounds of the stuff, mashed, roasted, I can't remember now I just remember asking what each dish was and struggling not to laugh. I think there may also have been peas.

Swede is short for Swedish Turnip.

Hold on! I cannot be arsed to RTFT, much in the same way I couldn't be arsed to pay attention in (Home Economics? Biology?) lessons... I also have 4 autistic children so it's not like I have time on my hands either...

Are we saying that a swede and a turnip are the same thing? I spent time during the winter months hunting down turnip for a recipe and nobody had any. I may have quipped to the staff on the veg aisle about their extinction from supermarkets and our demise as humans in no longer celebrating some of this wholesome, traditional, humble veg. I fear I may now be facing some serious 'after the event' shame and embarrassment and need to KNOW NOW!