• Obinice
    link
    English
    241 year ago

    Sure, but do you think the right wing nutjobs who get angry about things like this care about evidence?

    They’re glad of another excuse to validate their anger against “them”, and even if later evidence comes out to suggest something never happened, their rage and hatred has by this point only grown deeper.

    We’re on a path to a return to bring openly run by these sorts of people, and eventually all that deep hatred of “them” will come pouring out once there’s the power to act against them on a national scale.

    Us decent people are, by our nature, not angry and hateful enough to do anything to stop this until it’s far too late. History repeats itself over and over :-(

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -29
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They

      anger against “them”

      LOL oh the irony

      Us decent people

      ROFL

      Us decent people are, by our nature, not angry and hateful enough

      You think a lot of yourself don’t you.

      • @thedirtyknapkin
        link
        English
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        pronouns themselves aren’t a problem lol. he had a specific group in mind. “the conservatives who are complaining about this issue” the problem arises when the “them” is nebulous or used as a racist dig whistle. he is pointing out conversations using it as the latter here.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          the problem arises when the “them” is nebulous or used as a racist dig whistle

          I disagree. The problem is when you divide the whole into “us” and “them”.

      • @Gabu
        link
        English
        31 year ago

        Rightwingers aren’t people and don’t deserve to be treated like people. That better for you?

  • BrightCandle
    link
    English
    181 year ago

    Way back in time I worked in a supermarket that first trialled self shopping. At the time this was done with special trolleys and boxes and hand scanners people took around the store to scan their own goods. The scheme survived about two years. The system was designed to gradually ramp up rescans by the checkout operators if prior scans had shown missing items. Certain people were clearly making a lot of mistakes (usually with expensive items like Whiskey) but many weren’t. The increased waits for rescans for the people who often made such “errors” destroyed the value for everyone else and they became increasingly angry on what should have been near instant checkouts.

    Its notable I think that almost all supermarkets today use self scanning despite all those earlier experiments showing that some people would use it to hide theft. This goes very much against the image of the pocket and exit that people have in their head. That was actually very uncommon and being a person who often greeted on the door it was my job to spot them. Most of the theft occurred through items that were smuggled through the checkout in some way.

    I don’t think self scanning is contributing to an increase in theft losses and the data shows its not. What I think it potentially contributes to is making it hard to identify the theft because there are less employees effectively as the security force. The decline in prosecutions is likely due to these changes that the supermarkets have adopted which they knew 25 years ago resulted in hidden theft.

  • Queen HawlSera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    If you see someone stealing food or baby stuff. It is a case of observational error, in reality you didn’t see shit.

    • Tenebris Nox
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      I’ve just read that and can’t see anything badly written. Where was the bad writing? (Or is it just their views you don’t agree with?)

  • palordrolap
    link
    fedilink
    -81 year ago

    Questions for retailers (who probably won’t see this, but whatever):

    1. Do you have a security guard? Yes/No

    a) If yes, and you’re still getting shoplifters, hire better security. Problem solved.
    b) No? Get a security guard. Problem solved.

    1. Still here? Are you complaining about having to pay for a security guard? Yes/No

    a) If No, why are you still here? Go hire that competent guard.
    b) If Yes:

    1. What’s the cost of the shoplifting compared to having a security guard, taking wages, insurance and premiums into account? Less/More

    a) If Less, stop complaining, you’re getting a bargain.
    b) More? Looks like hiring a security guard might be worth it after all.

    Do I shoplift? Ha. I’m currently agoraphobic and don’t leave the house. My arms aren’t that long.

    The last time I was in a physical store, I was of the opinion that as long as I can afford something I need, I’ll pay for it. For things I merely want and can’t justify the expense, I’ll do without. (Sounds a bit like 3a.)

    And the last time I nicked something (calm down, put your monocle back on) it was probably a sweet from the pick & mix at Morrisons when I was 10 or something.

    • HeartyBeast
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      From what I recall, there are quite strict limits on the actions that a security guard can perform to actually detain someone, so actually a big factor is the police response time.

      Telling a little family-run corner shop to get a security guard isn’t that helpful

      • palordrolap
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        D’oh. I had briefly forgotten that small shops still exist. Probably because the ones nearest me went out of business. Not because of shoplifting but because they were priced out by corporate stores.