Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

How times change!

Very strange little story doing the rounds in Ireland right now...

If I'd been accused of stealing a bag of crisps from a supermarket when I was five years old, this certainly wouldn't have happened:

"A five-year-old Irish boy who was wrongly accused of stealing a bag of crisps has won 7,500 euros damages for defamation of character. The case, reported in the Irish Times on Wednesday, concerned Tadhg Mooney from Balbriggan in County Dublin. The court heard he was in a local branch of Lidl with his mother in June 2009 when a shop assistant grabbed his arm and made the accusation. His barrister told the court her client had suffered injury to his reputation."

Fucking hell...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tell me about it SG! There is something clearly wrong in compensation culture. Most kids caught shoplifting would probably have had a caution by the police then a clip in the earhole by their parents. If a child shoplifter was later proved innocent, then the kid should have been given £20 in shopping vouchers as an apology and a revised newspaper article to reverse any derogatory articles already made against the child/parents. Certainly not €7500 though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Monserrat wrote: »
    Tell me about it SG! There is something clearly wrong in compensation culture. Most kids caught shoplifting would probably have had a caution by the police then a clip in the earhole by their parents. If a child shoplifter was later proved innocent, then the kid should have been given £20 in shopping vouchers as an apology and a revised newspaper article to reverse any derogatory articles already made against the child/parents. Certainly not €7500 though.

    if the shop offered a small bit of compensation, then it'd be wrong to pursue, but if they just shrugged it off, well that's well out of order....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This made me chuckle:
    She added that, Tadhg, now aged six, had also been caused to suffer distress and inconvenience.

    Grrrrr, I'm so inconvenienced. That'll be €7,500 please!
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298403/Boy-wins-Lidl-defamation-case.html

    I know it's the Mail, but it certainly gives more detail.

    I don't have a problem with this at all. I know Lidl's supposedly cheap, but it's a still a massive supermarket chain (and german ;)) and if they've done wrong they should cough up.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it was compensation, more so for the false imprisonment than anything else.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well she done it fair and square, I'm sure most would do it these days. But the UK is becoming as bad as the USA. Gah.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I heard a joke somewhere that Europe introduced smallpox to the American continent back in the 17th century. Then America introduced class action lawyers to Europe in the 20th and said "now we're even".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nothing wrong in my book with suing.

    claims are often strange in size because it really depends who is suing who. It may be the case that if found guilty, the chain would have faced a punitive payment of much more, so just tried to pay off the kid to drop the case.

    We all know in our hearts that a shop keeper has no right to detain you, even if it's their shop - they're just another citizen. That's right and natural that another human being has no right to detain you just because they're suspicious of you. We only afford police officers (and other people in special circumstances) that ability.

    People do like to rage on about compensation culture though, it's terribly fashionable don't you know?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We all know in our hearts that a shop keeper has no right to detain you, even if it's their shop - they're just another citizen. That's right and natural that another human being has no right to detain you just because they're suspicious of you. We only afford police officers (and other people in special circumstances) that ability.

    Doesn't Citizen's Arrest counter-act that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »

    We all know in our hearts that a shop keeper has no right to detain you, even if it's their shop

    If they see you stealing something they certainly do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    If they see you stealing something they certainly do.

    If the person you're apprehending is absolutely and utterly guilty. Citizen's arrest isn't to encourage people to go around crime fighting, more as a protection for the person in case there is a crime occuring and they intervene (when it was not reasonable for a PC to do so).

    In this case, the boy even managed to get a settlement saying he -wasnt- guilty.

    That's a decent foundation for a case of unlawful imprisonment right there.

    A shop manager has no right to stop you leaving his shop and demand that you show him evidence that the goods you have on you belong to you - they have absolutely no investigative powers given by law. If they deemed you to have committed a crime, e.g. saw you take the good, saw you leave the shop without paying, then they may stop you and wait for a PC to take over.

    We already live in a society where too many people think they 'own' other people, the fact is it's completely the other way around. Everyone is given the right to freedom, and only in special circumstances or those who have been afforded special powers may curtail those freedoms.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you know how i know you're just trying to be argumentative? You managed to repeat exactly what i said but using 5 paragraphs instead of 8 words and still trying to make it sound like you're disagreeing with me!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Do you know how i know you're just trying to be argumentative? You managed to repeat exactly what i said but using 5 paragraphs instead of 8 words and still trying to make it sound like you're disagreeing with me!

    Touché :p

    You win... this time ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Touché :p

    You win... this time ;)


    :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When I worked as a shelf stacker at my local Spar, I caught a teenager stealing some chocolate bars. I locked the front door until the police came. Was that correct procedure? Bear in mind that I was 19 back then and it was year 1997.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see anything wrong in it. His reputation was damaged. The settlement may have been high, but there should have been some kind of settlement.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Reputation where exactly? Forgetting his age? The kid wouldn't himself have sued them, it was his mother who had the idea, it was her reputation she was saving. It is just another case of easy money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the child was 7 I don't think a citizens arrest would have been legal coz ya wouldn't try a 7yr old in crown court for nicking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    Reputation where exactly? Forgetting his age? The kid wouldn't himself have sued them, it was his mother who had the idea, it was her reputation she was saving. It is just another case of easy money.

    A child cannot represent themselves legally. And even if it were her reputation, then that's not a bad thing. Parents are responsible I feel for the actions of their children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The parent was responsible, she paid for the item. I know a kid can't represent themselves, which is why I said it was his mother who took them to court, easy money.
Sign In or Register to comment.