"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"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?

If they're going to assume for no particular reason that
a person is dishonest - as they've done in this instance by not
accepting his word, then why aren't they insisting on the right
to frisk everyone leaving their stores ? On the assumption that
a fair proportion of them will be dishonest as well, and will
have stolen goods ?

Basically they're calling the OP a liar. And while you may be
prepared to get down on your knees and roll over every time
somebody calls you a liar, and do whatever it is they tell you
to do, to prove to them that you're not lying, not everybody is as
docile or malleable as you clearly are. Thank heavens.


michael adams

....