Totally OT - Behaviour in Supermarkets

[pete]

Nah, you'd never get a nun into one of those trolleys. Packet of penguins maybe.

[Man at B&Q]

s/car/child/ Body filler.

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

That would be a dangle grinder.

MBQ

[ARWadsworth]

Did the runner use a zimmer frame?

Adam

[PeterC]

Game I made up on a ferry where there were kids running through the sitting areas: splat-a-brat.

[The Medway Handyman]

First time our granddaughter threw a paddy in a supermarket, her mum laid down next to her & did the same :-) Granddaughter doesn't go in for paddys anymore...

[Steve Firth]

And you call me grumpy?

[Steve Walker]

With our eldest, that didn't work at all, although with our middle one it did and the youngest is too young to have reached that stage yet. The eldest did grow out of it eventually.

SteveW

[geoff]

Or C cell batteries ...

[Bob Eager]

I thought it was candles and nuns...

[Dave]

You have noticed as well then :-(

Dave

[Dave]

When was the last time you saw a nun shopping? Talking of this, just where do they shop?

They are usually rattling a collection box.

Dave

[Rod]

Some nuns shop. They're the ones with a shopping habit.

[Dave]

This subject came up in uk.legal.moderated a few weeks ago and it was decided that it would be theft, because the original item was not there any more, it could be proved to the court that by eating the product, you could not prove that you intended to put it back.

Dave

[Bob Eager]

Quite a bit. There's a convent down the road. They use the local shops.

[Dave]

I wish ours would do the same :-)

Youngest g daughter throws a fit with her mother. She won't do it with me, because I turn round to her and say. 'you know you don't win with me' and she shuts up :-)

We had the g daughters up with us during the summer hols. I took them back to Portsmouth to see the youngest throw the worst paddy I have ever seen. If I had been in control, she would never even have tried it, let alone done it. I don't have to smack her, just hold her until she calms down, at worst.

Dave

[Ron Lowe]

ISTR that the definition of 'theft' ( at least in Scotland ) went along the lines of "...with intent to permenantly deprive the legitimate owner"

If there was a stated intention to pay, I think that would certainly be grounds for 'reasonable doubt', and thus a criminal prosecution would probably fail.

On that grounds alone, ( liklihood of conviction )I doubt the that the prosecution would proceed.

As regards juries and points of law: juries don't make decisions about points of law. They weigh the credibility of differing witness evidence. If a point of law makes the conviction impossible, they will be directed to that effect by the judge.

All IMHO, IANAL BMWI( but my wife is )

[geoff]

Technology moves on

Jesus vibrates in mysterious ways ...

[Dave Liquorice]

Not convinced. Putting it back or not isn't overly relevant to theft which is pretty tightly defined along the lines of "permenantly and intentionally depriving". What is crucial is the intent. You could eat the chicken leg provided you intend to pay for it. However until you do pay you could be liable to criminal damage to the chicken leg as it it not (yet) your property. However (again) it would be theft if you ate the chicken leg then left the store without paying for it but you would have to leave the store or at least be at an exit and on the way out through it, as is the case with normal shop lifting.

[Dave Liquorice]

Nun 1: Where's the soap? Nun 2: It does, doesn't it?