"michael adams" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's time,

It's Lidl's agents who are wasting everybody's time by automatically
asuming that the OP is lying.

They haven't done anything of the sort. All they appear to have done is ask for
proof of purchase on the day in question, which in fact he has but for some bizarre
reason refuses to supply. He clearly prefers conflict and obstinacy, which helps
no-one.

If Lidl insisted on frisking everyone leaving their stores (not everyone
of whom will even have bought anything) on the assumption that some of
them will be shoplifters, then people would be up in arms.

So what's the difference here ?

What's the similarity?