Schoolkids banned from local supermarket

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But you said yourself Beswitched those rules are tightened for everyone . We don’t cherry pick a specific demographic (although undoubtably prejudices do exist). At the airport we don’t say XYZ will be security checked, everyone else can carry on as normal.

I used to work in a supermarket, our biggest loss came from men stealing meat, alcohol and razors. Literally into the thousands some months. I can also think of at least 3 occasions where a staff member was assaulted in the process. Can you imagine making this same proposal in that circumstance? Only 2 men in at time, the rest can queue. There would (rightly) be uproar. I can guarantee they were costing the store more than these children.

nandad that's how my grandson's secondary school deals with home time and hordes of pupils going to local bus stops. Staff and prefects monitor and punish anti-social behaviour.

My elder son was beaten up very badly by a known bully at school. The school rang me at work to say he had been taken to a dentist as his tooth was knocked out. Now my son was a gentle boy who was harassed at lunchtime when he was trying to work. The bully was interviewed by the head and told he could stay at school until he finished his GCSEs. The head also wrote to my son congratulating him on not retaliating! My son took up tae kwondo and later joined the Royal Marines. Significant? 'In the meantime, after his exams, the bully was sent to stay with relatives in the US. I can’t forget a ‘friend’ expressing amazement that this boy was a bully - ‘but he comes from a lovely Christian family…’

The shop should send CCTV footage to the school and this to be shown to the kids on a big screen so they can see their behaviour. Discussion afterwards.
We were always expected to behave in uniform because it was a reflection on the school. Ultimately, it's the headteacher who sets the standards of pride in the school. Bad behaviour from the kids shows the headteacher is not sending out the right message.

My sister in law is a school secretary and says she spends half her time dealing with complaints about pupils' behaviour in the nearby large shopping centre after school. It's outside of school hours so isn't even strictly speaking their responsibility.

The Head has considered a rule saying children are not to go in there while still wearing their uniform, but it's fraught with difficulties and she knows she'd have parents down on her like a ton of bricks complaining about their children's human rights etc etc

When I was at school we were not allowed eat on the street while wearing our school uniform. None of our parents had an issue with it!

We avoid the local shops and buses at lunchtime and after school, so really, the kids are excluding us, changing our behaviour.

Still, now I live just a mile away from where I grew up. I remember being part of that annoying, loud, over-excited crowd at 3.30 pm and seeing the disapproving faces of the 'oldies'. The school banned us from using local buses, following complaints of pushing and queue jumping. We had to walk instead and it did us no harm.

We didn't go into shops, though, I had no money, just an apple in my satchel!

I’m with the supermarket on this one.

SpanielNanny the children who behave themselves in supermarkets (and elsewhere) will be very well aware of which of their classmates have caused the whole school to be banned. They know just who are the second-class citizens, and it isn't them, it is those who acted like selfish thieving bullies. That will have been reinforced by the talk that has doubtless been given them by their teachers, on how the school is judged by the actions of the lowest common denominator. Letters home to every parent (posted, not handed to the offending miscreants to deliver safely) should explain the situation and get the parents onside.

Good. I’m sick of badly behaved kids and their parents blaming everyone else.

I wish they’d all do it,

SpanielNanny

But you said yourself Beswitched those rules are tightened for everyone . We don’t cherry pick a specific demographic (although undoubtably prejudices do exist). At the airport we don’t say XYZ will be security checked, everyone else can carry on as normal.

I used to work in a supermarket, our biggest loss came from men stealing meat, alcohol and razors. Literally into the thousands some months. I can also think of at least 3 occasions where a staff member was assaulted in the process. Can you imagine making this same proposal in that circumstance? Only 2 men in at time, the rest can queue. There would (rightly) be uproar. I can guarantee they were costing the store more than these children.

I take your point. However the children are only not allowed in whke wearing their uniform. They can go in any other time they like.

The supermarket is a private business and employer that needs to retain its customer base to remain viable. They cannot do that if a large cohort is being driven away by large groups of school kids descending at the same time every day. Neither can they risk large compensation and injury claims also caused by these groups.

If a group of employees from a local business were arriving in together every day and causing chaos and danger by arsing around together, running up and down the aisles, knocking over displays etc I think the supermarket would be perfectly justified in taking similar steps.

2 at a time is the best rule, those that need to do shopping get it done the rest will go away and be a nuisance elsewhere. Standards have dropped considerably when I was at school any misbehavior when in school uniform was jumped on immediately, it was a school that valued its good reputation.