To be furious that a cashier at supermarket told me off for DD eating a bite of an apple...

[pavlovthecat]

... which I paid for?

Apparently, it is paid for by weight, so could I not let her do it in future? No please. Nothing else.

She is 23 months old. So charge me the extra f**king half pence then tosser!!!

It came to 21p. She had taken two 23 month old sized bites. Which is why I was buying it in the first place!

lol Elf, love that line!

I've just taken Tink to her first day at the CM's. She was upset with me for saying bye because she was playing I think she'll be OK there! Sure Start have arranged it, don't know how much it would cost otherwise and I'm starting to get stressed about childcare costs in case I end up in hospital again. Anyway, that's going away from the topic.

I don't know about class when I am unemployed and getting it for free

Iorek, I am worried that I already did sink to X's level.

Me too

oh no joking here

child minder - working class profession

As you were then.

[stands well back]

wel surely MC people actually have an education?

childminding cannot possibly be a career?more of a necessity for those that cannot get a job through personal circumstances?

In my experience childminders do it for all sorts of reasons and come from a variety of backgrounds, although clearly you are unlikely to find many lawyers and doctors working as CM's. I doubt though that they are any more or less likely than anyone else to let kids eat unpaid for stuff in shops.

as a doctor i can firmly tell you that we do NOT let our children eat in supermarkets

Message withdrawn

It's a little known clause in the hippocratic oath

Message withdrawn

Then shout 'CLEAR!' and run away while they're all looking for those big chest-iron things?

Message withdrawn

Whenever I am doing something particularly stupid (sawing off a high branch while standing underneathit and laughing gaily at DP) I ask myself whether this could appear in the opening scenes of Casualty. When it's still all going so well. If the answer's yes I ussually stop doing it.

Either that or those 70's public information films from school. Don't get in a fridge you will die sort of thing.

That is a good system. I nominate it for tip of the day.

Message withdrawn

OK. I nominate that as tip of the day.

People are confusing two very different things.

1. Feeding your child raisins whilst walking around the supermarket. The raisins coming from a fixed price packed which will be scanned with the rest of the shopping.
2. Taking a bite of an apple, 1 raisin, 1 grape or whatever that is sold by weight at the point of checkout.

The first scenario does not incorporate an intention to permanently deprive. The second scenario forms both the actus reus (the act of eating the apple) and the mens rea (the intention to permanently deprive) for theft.

Supermarkets are contractually quite complex as the act of selecting goods and placing them in your supermarket trolley is probably only an invitation to treat. But we feel things are "ours" as soon as we place them in the trolley. If you got the last packet of basmati rice on the shelf you would be really pissed off if someone came along and took the rice out of the trolley. The supermarkets therefore foster a sense of temporary ownership in order for the supermarket to run in a practical way. I would therefore think they would find it very difficult to prosecute a theft in the first scenario as there is no mens rea for theft - even thought the actus reus exists.

But the second scenario - thief thief thief.

You are right of course Swedes there has been a lot of conflation on this.

But that's not the point. Or at least it is as miniscule a point as the bite of the apple. The point is why did the person on the till not feel able to exercise their discretion. What led them to give more weight to the safeguarding the immeasurably small bit of profit represented by the bite of apple, than to interacting with the customer with common human decency and understanding? This is not about the principle of law, it is about the way that human beings relate to each other, and the way that these relationships are crushed under obeisance to the principles of commerce.

Iorek - Because the rule of law underpins any civilised society. Nobody is above the law. Not even if they are wearing a Hotchpotch dress.

Iorek - I only beat her a little bit.
I only stole the car for ten minutes. I was only just over the legal alcohol limit. etc

Message withdrawn

Erm... Swedes, who was the "thief thief thief"?

The child - 23 months - picked the apple up while her mum's back was turned and took a scraping off it (I know my daughter couldn't take a bite out of a whole apple) when Mum noticed and asked for the apple she took another scraping before she could get to her.

There was no "intention to permanently deprive" as soon as the mum knew what happened she took it off of her and paid for it with her shopping.

Why is everyone getting so uptight about a apple just remember there are worse things going on in this world than a 23 month old taking a bite out of a apple.

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread. I thought there was the odd person who was saying they intentionally gobbled grapes (and the like) and thought it was OK, courtesy of Mr Tesco etc.