Schoolkids banned from local supermarket

Your examples aren't quite the same though are they Beswitched? At the airport everyone has to go through security. What if they let some through without checks but decided others who fitted a particular cohort had to be checked? The same at workplaces, everyone is subjected to the same rule, there'd be uproar if only one section of the workplace had to comply.

At my son’s secondary school students weren’t allowed out at lunchtime, they either took a packed lunch or had a school dinner. I believe this is still the case there. At my nephew’s school, in a different town, teachers stood outside the shop where large numbers of pupils congregated and were dealt with immediately if they were being anti-social.

The Sainsbury’s in the village a mile from us is a no go area lunch time with the nearby college. But they don’t do anything about it. Think they welcome the custom as since they shut down the meat fish and deli counters the place is dead. I hope the once lovely shop closes down and we get a Waitrose.

SpanielNanny

I can see both sides of this. I fully understand why the supermarket felt like they had no choice. It’s costing them money as customers are going elsewhere, it’s potentially dangerous etc. They needed to do something, and what’s the alternative really?

However, what message does it send to the those children who aren’t misbehaving? In their eyes society has labelled them as ‘bad’, when their only ‘crime’ is living in the catchment area of a specific school. I often hear people talk about how the younger generation have no respect anymore. Well ‘you can’t be what you can’t see’, and what kind of respect are we modelling to these children, by treating them as second class citizens when they’ve done nothing wrong?

We wouldn’t allow any other demographic of society to be penalised for the behaviour of a certain proportion of their cohort. Imagine if they decided to ban a certain age group of adults because they’re the most likely to shop lift for example. We just wouldn’t accept it.

I think it happens all the time in real life. Everyone has to go through the rigours of security checks at the airport because of the criminal intentions of a minority for example.
I have worked in several places where timekeeping or sick leave rules were significantly tightened up because a minority of employers were abusing the existing laxer ones.

Parents really have no idea how their little angels behave - especially in a crowd.

Teaching at a college, I had a voice recorder on my desk - just to modify their language - with a promise to play it all back to their mothers.

I can see both sides of this. I fully understand why the supermarket felt like they had no choice. It’s costing them money as customers are going elsewhere, it’s potentially dangerous etc. They needed to do something, and what’s the alternative really?

However, what message does it send to the those children who aren’t misbehaving? In their eyes society has labelled them as ‘bad’, when their only ‘crime’ is living in the catchment area of a specific school. I often hear people talk about how the younger generation have no respect anymore. Well ‘you can’t be what you can’t see’, and what kind of respect are we modelling to these children, by treating them as second class citizens when they’ve done nothing wrong?

We wouldn’t allow any other demographic of society to be penalised for the behaviour of a certain proportion of their cohort. Imagine if they decided to ban a certain age group of adults because they’re the most likely to shop lift for example. We just wouldn’t accept it.

There’s a Sainsbury’s Local opposite a school near me. I avoid lunchtimes because it’s quite intimidating as the children buy sandwiches, sit around eating them and the mess they leave is disgraceful.
When I was at school in the city, we had to bring a letter from a parent, requesting shopping permission and then only for one shop, that day and only the person named. It worked well, as we had a very distinctive uniform, so any troublemakers could be easily identified and reported.

I get really fed up with parents rushing to defend their 'well-behaved' children. A post on a page in the city I live in, with a picture of a spray painted (tagged) garden wall, by the outraged occupant, has resulted in abuse from... the parents of the taggers! Saying it is bullying. No attempt to address the issue of their children graffit-ing his wall.

Teenagers do stupid stuff (undeveloped prefrontal cortex). Parents are there to correct and guide. Does 'em no favours if instead of guiding they excuse.

I really don't know why parents are complaining. Surely their kids can bring a packed lunch to school, and have no need to be hanging around the sup8on their way home. If they do need to go there they can come home, change out of their uniform and walk back down, minus a group of peers egging each other on.

Shops have always had the option to exclude anyone they wish. There's no automatic right to entry, as it's private property, just like our homes, so they 'invite' who they like.

Several smaller shops here have a 'two schoolchildren only' rule. It's vital, to avoid a crowd, chaos and shoplifting after school and at lunchtimes.

When we had a Woolworths in our small local town, they refused to let in more than 2 secondary school children in at any one time on school days, they had to queue up outside or go away. Most of them chose to move on.

Our local one only allows two in at a time and have been doing that for years as well as prosecuting shoplifters, normally a caution, but it makes them think and word spreads.

I wish the supermarkets where we live had the same rules Beswitched. We avoid lunch times for the same reason and I wonder why they go. By the time they've walked there and back to school, their lunch time is over.