Forum menu
Reading this thread has reminded me why I’m no longer a scout leader.
I always found their handbook disturbingly titled
"Scouting for boys" 😯
My God you’re right! I’ve just realised that shopkeepers up and down the country have been guilty of enticing children onto their premises & providing them with sweeties. Why has nobody noticed this before? If that isn’t paedo behaviour then I don’t know what is.
The abuses in Rochdale/Bradford etc all started in takeaways.
The chances of a kid being fiddled with in a shop are near zero. The chances of a kid getting run over walking/cycling to a shop are terrifyingly high.
Let's get a grip and a sense of perspective.
As tomhoward says above don't underestimate the way some nasty pieces of work plan things. The Rochdale takeaway is not isolated, just one that made it to court and the papers. Sexual offences are very hard to find and prove.
It's a very small proportion of shopkeepers / takeaway staff but unfortunately they are in a lot of places.
What Bruce describes is pretty much how one of my old teachers used to groom kids, including my high school girlfriend. It is to my eternal shame that I didn’t believe her at the time, as he was such a nice guy.
Read about him here.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/shelley-college-andrew-green-banned-9153546
That story is from 2015. I was there 1999-2003.
The chances of a kid being fiddled with in a shop are near zero. The chances of a kid getting run over walking/cycling to a shop are terrifyingly high.
Let’s get a grip and a sense of perspective.
I think there's a name for this particular debating tactic.
This doesn't just apply to shops. The point is not where it happens, the point is that it's dangerous to allow anyone to take children's details without a lawful reason.
Suspicion they may have committed a petty crime is not a lawful reason. Evidence that they have committed a crime is a different matter of course, but if there is evidence then you call the police and they follow the proper rules regarding data protection.
I'm not saying people need to be locked up if they take a child's details. However, they should be reminded that it is no longer allowed and why.
If they really need a child's details then it has to go through the parents. I'm not sure why that's so crazy.
.
As for those who wondered if I might be being naïve with respect to my kids: I have always made it clear to all of them that they will be trusted, but they also have to earn that trust by making good decisions or at least owning up to bad ones. They also know that their parents will not automatically take either side in a dispute, but that we will do our best to discern what is right and true, and that they will be loved either way… even when they do mess up.
Hopefully, then, they know they can be honest, and I know, when I look into their eyes, if there is even a flicker of dishonesty. That said, I do NOT believe that my kids are right above all. They definitely aren’t, but we try to meet each situation as it comes up.
My faith in parenthood is redeemed.
Much more so than causing a big reactionary row in a shop.
The Candy Man can cos he’s got a white van……..
The abuses in Rochdale/Bradford etc all started in takeaways.
Clearly we need to ban takeaways from serving children.
If they really need a child’s details then it has to go through the parents. I’m not sure why that’s so crazy.
How do they find the parents if the kids are shoplifting. Follow them home?
How do they find the parents if the kids are shoplifting. Follow them home?
Good question. Maybe you should write to your MP and start campaigning for the UK to abandon or change the GDPR rules. Brexit bonus and all that.
With the shortage of police it will do the country good for private citizens to take charge of policing and disciplining children.
The chances of anyone abusing the lack of oversight are very close to zero. A tiny percentage of kids will fall through the cracks but, like everything else, it's a price worth paying to be free from red tape.
Or maybe shops near schools could just put up signs saying, 'Max. 2 school kids in the shop at a time' instead of just randomly accusing children of shoplifting and illegally taking their details?
People make a big thing about child abuse but almost nobody takes a moment to stop and think about all the Mars bar injustice in the world.
Suspicion they may have committed a petty crime is not a lawful reason. Evidence that they have committed a crime is a different matter of course, but if there is evidence then you call the police
Yup, thats the realms for the police, school, social work to act in and nobody else, especially not shopkeepers.
They cannot do anything from pure suspicion, they actually have to find evidence, in which case they can detain, though that said, I couldnt say at what age that starts, but I suspect they can physically hold teenagers, but they have to inform the police to take matters like personal details.
Plenty of dodgy sobs out there, shopkeepers included. Dear old Mum to this day will never know why the manager of the local co-op would always be wiling to open the shop after it was closed when she sent me(aged 9) down to get something that she'd run out of.
Hope the kids had the sense to only shoplift the expensive sweets
Sweets? When I was very much younger, my mum took me and my younger brother down to Brean, she knew someone with a static caravan on one of the sites there. I used to regularly walk along the beach into Burnham and wander round the shops, WHSmith used to have a range of Hot Wheels cars, which were always fun.
I had quite a nice little collection after a while… 😙
I joined this site recently on the back of a conversation with a work colleague describing how often the most boring topics dissolve into those internet stereotypes of keyboard warriors, grandiosity, and plain insanity .. providing great unintentional comedy🤣
I had to see for myself.
Within days I got accused of being a Troll and being a person previously banned .. and subsequently Trolled by same said person😆
And then this seemingly mundane topic of school children shoplifting (despite their parent posting 1600 topics here). Thank you regulars of Single-track world for demonstrating all the stereotypes in one thread .. perfect; I'm hooked👌
BruceWee - according to the ICO
The UK GDPR applies to the processing of personal data that is:
wholly or partly by automated means; or
the processing other than by automated means of personal data which forms part of, or is intended to form part of, a filing system.
If the shopkeeper is asking names so that they can phone the school, so the names will not form part of a filing system and will not be subject to automated processing, how is GDPR applicable?
Within days I got accused of being a Troll
Most here joined because they're into bikes. but not yourself it seems. So what then is your motivation for joining this hotbed of keyboard warriors.
" providing great unintentional comedy🤣 "
So by your own volition, you've joined to post and get a rise out of people, simply for your own entertainment 😕
Internet forums are always arguing with each other. From social media like twitter or facebook through to specific hobby and interest forums such as there.
In another forum im on we've a specific off topic section for 'controversial topics' and it quite a place of argument, so this on the only 'chat' section is not unexpected so you joined to do what exactly 😕 To add to it ?.
So given all that I wouldnt think being labeled a troll yourself was that far from the mark.
If the shopkeeper is asking names so that they can phone the school, so the names will not form part of a filing system and will not be subject to automated processing, how is GDPR applicable?
Good question. If you can decide whether writing the name and school down on a piece of paper constitutes a filing system then you're a better internet lawyer than I am.
A method of storing and organising information to enable easy identification and retrieval of information. The term filing system may have specific definitions under certain jurisdictions data protection laws. Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), for example, a filing system is defined as any structured set of personal data that are accessible according to specific criteria whether centralised, decentralised or dispersed on a functional or geographical basis (Article 4(6) and Recital 15). The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data by both automated and manual means provided that the personal data are contained, or are intended to be contained, in a filing system. For further information, see Practice note, Overview of EU General Data Protection Regulation: Nature and scope of the EU data protection regime: Material scope.
As an internet lawyer I have to say I'm getting a bit out of my depth when it comes to exactly how the specifics of this two year old law is applied.
However, I think if you want to look at the spirit of the law and what it is designed to protect, ie, that in the online world we are far more vulnerable and that this especially applies to children, then taking the details of children without their parents consent is questionable.
But hey, if you're cool with any member of the public being able to demand personal information from your kids without a lawful reason then you have absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
Seriously though, would it not be easier to just put a sign in the window?
range of Hot Wheels cars, which were always fun.
I had quite a nice little collection after a while…
Probably explains your stint working for BCA!
Username that translates as Chosen One thinks they are better than the people they are choosing to wind up for their own entertainment.
Whoda thunk it?
I can't wait for the high court case to determine whether a post-it note constitutes a filing system. We're down to the nitty gritty now.
I can’t even work out if this thread is now about kids stealing, GDPR or all shop keepers being paedos - it’s hard to keep up!
I can’t wait for the high court case to determine whether a post-it note constitutes a filing system. We’re down to the nitty gritty now.
Yes, as always the important thing is to figure out the exact wording of the law so that the internet lawyers can 'win' the argument.
Whether random people coercing kids into giving up their personal details constitutes a risk in the digital age or not is a mere irrelevancy.
What if he just remembered their names in his brain? The organic filing system.
As an internet lawyer I have to say I’m getting a bit out of my depth when it comes to exactly how the specifics of this two year old law is applied.
most of the rules in GDPR were in the 1988 DPA - including the concept that it needn't only apply to electronic records. Only a court could decide if it applies to a particular circumstance, that will actually depend more on what you do with the note you took rather than where or how that note was recorded. Scribbled on a bit of till roll, phone call made to school, record destroyed - not really a GDPR/DPA issue. Recorded in a security guards log book and held on file pending for three years to support prosecutions, almost certainly in scope! Like throwing the FOI Act at schools, throwing GDPR at corner shops to try and win the argument is stupid - and you run the risk of looking stupid if the owner (who if they have CCTV may well be more GDPR aware than you!) points out that you are talking bollocks.
However, I think if you want to look at the spirit of the law and what it is designed to protect, ... then taking the details of children without their parents consent is questionable.
Except that:
1. GDPR provides 5 reasons for processing information without the consent of the data subject anyway, e.g. I'd be quite sure that the prevention of shoplifting is a legitimate interest of the shopkeeper.
2. If consent had been the lawful basis for processing, then parental consent is only required for <13's in the UK (so at least the older child is not in scope) and only then for "information society services" which is definitely not what writing your details on a piece of paper is.
There's so much bullshit about GDPR that adding to it by saying the shopkeepers can't ask for the details of children they suspect of shoplifting really isn't going to help. Rather than add to children's protections, its that sort of myth that will mean Dominic Rab is proposing abolishing data protection rights next.
But hey, if you’re cool with any member of the public being able to demand personal information from your kids without a lawful reason then you have absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
Except that it could be a lawful reason! They could of course have refused to provide it. He'd likely still have known which school they were from anyway - given they were likely in uniform, and most probably has pictures on a CCTV system that a determined shopkeeper could take to the school who would be able to identify them (and then probably ignore)...
I don't suggest you take up grooming children though - I am sure there are far simpler ways than scaring kids to tell you their name!
I wonder if this thread has worked out the way the OP anticipated?
We’re down to the nitty gritty now.
Not a term that should be used.
Not a term that should be used
I've never understood this. People can't say that because it might have once had slavery connotations.
Whereas the word "Slavery" which definately did have slavery connotations and still does today, is ok.
I've just had to look that up. I had no idea it was problematic.
Take away their pocket money, job done, can't be accused if you have no reason to be in the shop.
**** running a shop near a school
“there is no evidence to support the suggestion that 'nitty gritty' has any connection with slave ships,” saying the phrase “isn't even recorded in print” until the 1930s, “long after slave ships had disappeared.”
It lists the earliest example of the phrase in print coming from a catalogue of musical compositions from 1937 which includes a song titled 'That Nitty-Gritty Dance', by Arthur Harrington Gibbs.
Like throwing the FOI Act at schools, throwing GDPR at corner shops to try and win the argument is stupid
It does raise a good point though and not something I'd thought of. I will instruct my kids not to give their details out to anyone. If someone demanded your name and address, would you give it?
It does raise a good point though and not something I’d thought of. I will instruct my kids not to give their details out to anyone.
We spent hours teaching my son his surname and the first line of his address as early as possible so he could tell an adult and be returned to us if we ever lost him.
Having found a lost toddler once and then been assisted by 3 other adults I reckon most people asking a kid for his name and address are trying to help. In comparison there's a vanishingly small number of peados.
Do paedos have to know the kid's name before they molest them?
Have we found out which school, the big boys who did this but ran off, are from?
Have we found out which school, the big boys who did this but ran off, are from?
I think the shopkeeper is still doing the paperwork and training courses that will permit him to ask them
We spent hours teaching my son his surname and the first line of his address as early as possible so he could tell an adult and be returned to us if we ever lost him.
I just put collars on mine with their first name and my phone number
This is the thread that just keeps giving.
I just put collars on mine with their first name and my phone number
My wife wouldn't let me tattoo my mobile number on his face.
I think the shopkeeper is still doing the paperwork and training courses that will permit him to ask them
🤣
“there is no evidence to support the suggestion that ‘nitty gritty’ has any connection with slave ships,” saying the phrase “isn’t even recorded in print” until the 1930s, “long after slave ships had disappeared.”
It lists the earliest example of the phrase in print coming from a catalogue of musical compositions from 1937 which includes a song titled ‘That Nitty-Gritty Dance’, by Arthur Harrington Gibbs.
It's sufficiently ambiguous that some agencies (eg: Sky) have instructed their employees not to use it. So whether it's 100% proven or not, it is best avoided when there are dozens of other phrases that will serve the same role.
If it might hold racist connotations, best avoided, no?
So whether it’s 100% proven or not
What do you mean by not 100pc proven? Do you think it's 0.001pc proven? How so? AFAICT there's absolutely no reason to think there's any significance to the word whatsoever.
If it might hold racist connotations, best avoided, no?
That's a different issue. Not a word I use so easily avoided for me. But again, other words that have slavery connotations like the word 'slavery' or 'slave ship' or 'shackle' are all totally fine so I'm curious about the rules around this. But yup, not a word I use so no drama for me.
those words existed before africans were used as slaves in the new world. slavery existed before then but i think that the slave trade at that time was the biggest ever in history and is at the root of a lot of modern issues.
words and phrases that come specifically from that trade are offensive.
edit: would be my guess
I think there is sufficient doubt that I avoid using the phrase just in case.
Phrases.org does apparently have a bit of a reputation - complaining about people being touchy about certain language and phrases. So them saying 'It's probably OK because there's nothing in print before 1930" isn't necessarily a glowing endorsement.
Equally, language changes and evolves. It may have been in common use but not recorded and then fallen out of circulation to then come back. The c word was common parlance at one time, we even had roads named after 'it'.
The lack of any etymology giving a more polite version of where it does come from also makes me wonder.
We are into slavery now?
What the hell had gone on since I last popped in here?!
If the op's kids have been sold off into slavery by the shop keeper?
I'm against it.
Whether random people coercing kids into giving up their personal details constitutes a risk in the digital age or not is a mere irrelevancy.
I'm struggling with the jump from knowing a child's name to coercing, does knowing someone's name suddenly make them more vulnerable?