Kicked out of Sainsburys!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I might go into my local store, take a photo, get kicked out and it should help me save about £400 a month on stuff that I only buy because I'm A) too lazy to cook what's in the cupboard at home, and B) am so hungry after a hard day's work that I just buy everything I see. I'm currently making a stew out of 60 rolls of bog roll and a kilo of carrots that were on offer :D
 
sheddy said:
The manager has committed fraud by misrepresenting a company rule as law.
Click to expand...

No he hasn't, he's just being an idiot. For someone to be committing fraud, there has to be an element of gain, or loss (or risk of loss) to another. Ahem.

A few people have commented about the nature of Trespass, and has been correctly pointed out, it's a civil matter. Your right to shop in Sainsburys is the same as any other member of public, and is only withdrawn when the staff boot you out. You are only committing the (civil) offence if you refuse to leave.

The criminal trespass discussed refers mainly to Aggravated Trespass, which sounds a lot more glamorous than it is. That occurs when someone's behaviour is intended to disrupt lawful activity of others using the land / building, etc (e.g. protesters gluing themselves to the door of a bank). There are also other forms, such as Armed Trespass, but it's even less relevant to go into those laws here.
 
hmmmmm, all sems a bit furtive sneaking around with an ihone piddly 2mpg camera...... now had you set up with a tripod, a neon green jacket with press (or even better H&S) over the back, and a snazzy pro camera , then no one would have given a toss, especailly when you produced the photoshopped letter from HO........:) - i assume the very act of trying to use a camera phone furtively would arouse suspicion...........

I always find if I have an issue with any supermarket, and have been known to thrown a tantrum at the deli counter when "You have to have the already cut ham......" - drop the basket, walk off to Cust Servs, and demand the Store Manager, not the Produce Manager, or Car Park Manager........and then explain in no uncertain terms why this is unacceptable to me....... usually gets the result there and then, especially if you talk quite loudly near the main entrance, just bty the CS desk, as the REMOVED : NO SWEARING have not worked out yet, "If customer, demands the head honcho, direct him to a quiet cornet of the store!!!".... instead "leave him in full view of all customers entering and exiting......... in a mid on rant about crap CS / attitude / poor quality products etc......
 
:popcorn:

Good stuff this..................
 
CGeezer said:
On the subject of Sainsburys I was horrified to see this in my local store (no C&C required) and took a photo with my camera phone. A CCTV in the toilets!! I realise that people probably sort out their shop lifted goods in there but it is a little un-nerving non the less.

30a9pnt.jpg
Click to expand...

Are you sure that is CCTV?

It looks more like a PIR that controls a 2-port solenoid valve on the cold water feed to the cistern.
 
Firstly it sounds like they could do with some lessons in customer service!

Saying that, retailers are entitled to ban photography in their stores and the manager is upholding this rule.
I work as a retail buyer and one of the jobs of a buying assistant or junior buyer is to stay up to date with competitor packaging designs and also the shelf layout (planogram) so you have no idea how many times I've been thrown out of shops! When I was younger I pretended to be a student doing a project!
 
Well I can tell you I have done covert video recording in some places, mind you I was getting paid for it.
No one can tell you are filming and it all top quality colour with sound It was fun more so when you can film something that the staff should not be doing lol
One day I had all the staff of a car showroom watching a mechanic doing card tricks and not serving the customers i.e. me.
It was funny as I am a magician as well.
 
DavidMarq said:
Are you sure that is CCTV?

It looks more like a PIR that controls a 2-port solenoid valve on the cold water feed to the cistern.
Click to expand...

Agreed...

That is a PIR sensor that allows the cistern only to be refilled upon sensing movement of a person (or animal). It is a water/energy saving device that stops the cisterns being constantly filled and emptied unecessarily.

I always thought there was a law on CCTV in toilets. Only allowed to look at the sink/washing areas.???
 
daniel2040 said:
Hi everyone..

As the subject says, I was kicked out of sainsburys today for taking a photo!

The story behind it goes like this..

I have noticed that my local sainsburys is really dropping its standards, so i have been taking pics of things (on my iphone) of the things that have irritated me recently.

Today, i took a pic of 4 staff standing about in the isle chatting about their cars and blocking me from getting down there.

The manager ran over, told me that i was 'breaking THE law by taking photos', and when I asked "I wasnt sure if i was breaking a LAW, exactly what LAW am i breaking??", things turned mean and the eventual outcome was that i am not welcome back there.

I simply wanted to know that, as HE said i am breaking the LAW, obviously, he was more aware of the legal system than i was, and i wanted to know what law it was that i was breaking.

Needless to say, i wont be going back there, but was wondering if anyone out there knew if i was breaking a law, and if so... what one?

I am tired of being treated like a peadofile or criminal because i have a camera!


i wonder how many other people feel my pain and if anyone knows anything about what law i supposedley broke..


-daniel.
Click to expand...

You sound like you'd be a riot at a party.
 
Now merely writing the name of Jesus Christ is an offense punishable by censorship?

I'll remind people of that next time someone moans about someone else stopping them from taking a picture.

Censorship is inherently ugly and all forms of it should be avoided. Especially in a photography forum, an outlet for an artform that is ever threatened by that very act.
 
Writing the name Jesus Christ is by no means offensive, so long as it's done in the correct context. However, used in the way you did in your post is NOT acceptable and COULD be deemed offensive by some of our members.

It is nothing to do with censorship, it's about ensuring people conduct themselves with respect to all members on these forums. A point you'd do well to remember
 
Just so i understand this correctly....question: is this your full/part time job or is it to pay for the little luxuries in life?
 
I took a photo with my phone of a desk in IKEA so that I could paste into a mock up of my office to see how it looked. As I was leaving I heard an alert that someone was taking photos coming over a security guard's radio as he ran past me :suspect: :whistling:


All I thought I was guilty of was having poor taste in furniture :lol:
 
Grendel said:
Writing the name Jesus Christ is by no means offensive, so long as it's done in the correct context. However, used in the way you did in your post is NOT acceptable and COULD be deemed offensive by some of our members.

It is nothing to do with censorship, it's about ensuring people conduct themselves with respect to all members on these forums. A point you'd do well to remember
Click to expand...

Hmm, imagine if the law pandered to the most sensitive members of society, how many places do you think you'd be able to use your camera?
 
fly my pretties said:
Hmm, imagine if the law pandered to the most sensitive members of society, how many places do you think you'd be able to use your camera?
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. The point is you made a post in this thread that site staff deemed inappropriate. End of.

If you wish to continue fighting a loosing battle, feel free to pm me, as I don't want to take this thread any further off topic
 
Grendel said:
That's irrelevant. The point is you made a post in this thread that site staff deemed inappropriate. End of.

If you wish to continue fighting a loosing battle, feel free to pm me, as I don't want to take this thread any further off topic
Click to expand...

You've changed your tune. A minute ago it was censored because you deemed it potentially offensive, now you're saying it's because you found it inappropriate.

Make your mind up.

If you think I'm being unfair here, then please try and see my point of view. I used an extremely common expression and you have censored it on the off chance that someone somewhere may be offended.

I'm offended at your censorship of my posts. Do you pander to everyone, or just the people you've invented in your head?

Also, it's "losing".

I don't want to take this to a private message, I want to continue this discussion, because I think it's important. What is the correct forum to make a thread in?
 
fmp, before this goes way way off topic, I thought I'll put in a word on behalf of all us folks that chat here and have done for a while.

You may be right about the censorship issue, you may be wrong but neither have any relevance here. This is not a public place and free speech is not a right. Forums are like private houses and whom ever owns one has the right to decide how it's going to be run.

There are so many good reasons to use this forum that you have to let this go before your host stops being so hospitable. :)
 
Freedom of speech still applies in a private house. The idea of following a rule I disagree with just to please my host is, as a free thinking human, rather abhorrent to me.

However, I fully understand your point, and should not have made an issue out of it in this thread. I unaware there was a relevant outlet for this kind of thing, but I have no found it. I have raised the issue in the proper forum and will no longer derail this thread. I apologise for doing so in the first place.

As an addendum, I didn't miss the point that your "may be right" supposition was infact a proposition correctly worded to flow with the rule you pointed out in the following sentence. I appreciate that.
 
fly my pretties said:
Freedom of speech still applies in a private house. The idea of following a rule I disagree with just to please my host is, as a free thinking human, rather abhorrent to me.
Click to expand...

But surely you realise that your host has every right to turf you out of his house when he gets sick of you?
 
Enough is enough.

Fly my pretties has some time off to think about his manners in our house.

Back on topic now please :)
 
Theres a working CCTV camera in the mens toliets of a Whetherspoons in London :gag:

Likely not illegal (im dont know the law that well) as its private property but unethical none the less
 
I don't know whether putting CCTV cameras in toilets/changing rooms is illegal or not, but it might well be, because of the privacy issues. It's definitely unacceptable. This could have been a dummy - a lot of them are very realistic - or a real camera that wasn't connected to any sort of monitor, for security reasons.

Owners and lawful occupiers of private places don't have carte blanche to do as they please. They still have to comply with the law. My house is a private place, but I'm not allowed to set dangerous booby traps that could kill/injure an intruder, even though no-one would be at risk unless they broke the law by breaking in.

Shopping malls, stores and restaurants are private places, and the public have a general invitation to enter for the purpose of browsing/shopping/eating/meeting friends etc. This is reasonably elastic, but there are limits. The owner or lawful occupier can apply any lawful conditions/restrictions they please, including a ban on photography. Some licensed premises have a "No Under 21" rule, or something similar, although you can legally drink there if you are 18.

I used to do a lot of post loss (robbery/burglary) assessments in South Africa, and nearly all the malls had restrictions on photography, although they didn't normally enforce them against people taking snaps of each other with cell phone cameras. I always asked for permission, and was never refused. They didn't have a problem with photography inside the client's store, that was up to the manager. Store restrictions are usually for security reasons, but also to discourage competitors from photographing the prices and displays. A bit pointless, maybe, but there you are.

Malls/stores don't have to display notices prohibiting photography, or anything else. They can, but the notices are just to inform and advise people of the terms and conditions of entry, not to create them, and they give the manager something to point at if there's a dispute. They're not law. You're not trespassing if you start taking photographs, but the manager can ask you to stop and/or to leave the store, and you are committing an offence if you refuse. He can also ban you from returning, by withdrawing your general invitation, and a lot of stores use this to prevent known shoplifters "browsing". He can't take your camera, or insist that you delete images. The police can seize the camera as an exhibit if they intend to proceed, but only a court can order confiscation etc.
 
getting back to the original post, isn't this really about how you react to confrontation?
Be polite, apologise, explain what you were doing, perhaps sending a picture the wife to ask which of these products she wants as she couldn't do the shopping as was incapacitated/lost the key to the chain on the sink etc.;) and you usually get a reasonable response.

Go off on one and human nature says the other person will react. Bad news if they are in a position of authority.
 
Most male toilets in London clubs have cameras in now, to catch blokes sneaking off for a cheeky line. I wasn't particularly impressed at two door-thugs bursting into my cubicle whilst taking a **** a while back :(
 
Gawd if this is where photography is going by taking photos inside supermarkets and shops I think I'll sell up, I can't imagine a worse place to be, it's bad enough when I have to buy something, normally left to the missus.

So what there were staff chatting in the aisle, have you never spoke to your workmates while at work before? Now if they had been standing chatting for ten minutes or so then fair enough you might feel in a position of the power crazy customers who have nothing better to do in life than make life difficult for someone at their workplace to say something to the management.
All that was needed was a "Excuse me please"

Christ! get a life.
 
It just struck me that there is a new problem facing store owners with the advent of smart phones.

My phone has an app. where it can read barcodes and advise me of the cheapest and nearest alternative supplier.

It isn't really a camera but a bar code reader, though it does use the camera function.

Presumably store managers don't like those either?
 
Have to agree with Frank. I can't imagine taking my camera down to the local supermarket to prove a point about the staff. No wonder the Store Manager wasn't receptive. As has already been said, why not just have a quiet chat with him/her?
 
I do also agree as has been said that a word with the maneger to discuss your issues, or a letter/email written to head office would have had a more desirable effect, and potentially a better outcome.

Having worked in retail security management for several years, and having experienced burglaries and the like following the use of cameras in store, I would certainly be wanting to know why you were taking photographs on private property without permission, and would also, if I felt it appropriate involve the Police, as my prime concern would be the protection of my staff, stock and premises.

I understand in this case that your issue wasn't security related - but your whole approach resulted I believe in a justified response. I think a number of people have stated similar views. It's easy to fly off the handle and blame the store, and say that they were wrong in what they said, and that they were technically incorrect etc - and yes it was badly handled - but at the end of the day you were in the wrong - and if anything, it should be you apologising to them.
 
trapper501 said:
It just struck me that there is a new problem facing store owners with the advent of smart phones.

My phone has an app. where it can read barcodes and advise me of the cheapest and nearest alternative supplier.

It isn't really a camera but a bar code reader, though it does use the camera function.

Presumably store managers don't like those either?
Click to expand...

Cool - did you try the Google barcode the other day?

I really did fancy sticking it to a tin of beans to see if it came up as $32billion at the checkout :D
 
I don't know about google barcode, this is called shop savvy.

I've only tried it at home on a Canon lens box. It was incredibly quick but I wasn't too impressed with some of the suppliers, I'd never heard of most of them.
 
daniel2040 said:
Hi everyone..

As the subject says, I was kicked out of sainsburys today for taking a photo!

The story behind it goes like this..

I have noticed that my local sainsburys is really dropping its standards, so i have been taking pics of things (on my iphone) of the things that have irritated me recently.

Today, i took a pic of 4 staff standing about in the isle chatting about their cars and blocking me from getting down there.

The manager ran over, told me that i was 'breaking THE law by taking photos', and when I asked "I wasnt sure if i was breaking a LAW, exactly what LAW am i breaking??", things turned mean and the eventual outcome was that i am not welcome back there.

I simply wanted to know that, as HE said i am breaking the LAW, obviously, he was more aware of the legal system than i was, and i wanted to know what law it was that i was breaking.

Needless to say, i wont be going back there, but was wondering if anyone out there knew if i was breaking a law, and if so... what one?

I am tired of being treated like a peadofile or criminal because i have a camera!


i wonder how many other people feel my pain and if anyone knows anything about what law i supposedley broke..


-daniel.
Click to expand...

ok, i think you took it waaay too serious, a simple "excuse me gents" would probably have sufficed. If you want to be a pedantic pain in peoples backsides, then maybe you should change profession and become a parking attendant. The problem described by you occurred, because you caused it.
 
Instead of shop and hotel room photography. Try Landscapes, i can highly recommend it.

Not as lucrative i'll admit but you'll annoy less people
 
how about showing us the photo you took of these lazy twerps, i could do with a laugh.
 
trapper501 said:
It just struck me that there is a new problem facing store owners with the advent of smart phones.

My phone has an app. where it can read barcodes and advise me of the cheapest and nearest alternative supplier.

It isn't really a camera but a bar code reader, though it does use the camera function.

Presumably store managers don't like those either?
Click to expand...

Just to turn this around slightly, but isn't there a system that sends advert to passing moble phones when you pass certain shop (bluetooth maybe?) so they'd be happy enough for you to have a phone for that.
 
Crikey! i am sorry for this massive thread!

I didnt/dont have a problem being told to not take photos. i dont have a problem being told to leave for taking them without asking. it is their place and if the want me to leave, then i am leaving and i did so, VERY quietly!

my issue was, as people with cameras, i am tired of being told that there is a law against using it - and people enforcing these 'laws' not knowing what the laws are.. thats all.

I guess i just wanted to know what these laws are, and where i can find them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top