Compensation Culture ...

slowbike
slowbike Posts: 8,498
edited August 2018 in The cake stop
The priorities of some ppl ...

a story in the regional news - mum bought a secondhand phone from a shop for her daughters birthday... battery was flat so took it home to charge ... charged it and gave it to daughter on her birthday. Took a couple of photos and daughter went to view them - got a bit of a shock as there was some porn images and video still on the phone. Turned the phone off and waited for the Dad to come home - apparently took the unit back to the shop - no refund offered (or demanded?).
Mum is quoted as saying that "We deserve a bit of compensation, especially for what my daughter saw"

Really? Money is going to help the daughter "forget" what she saw?

Don't get me wrong - the shop should've wiped the unit prior to reselling - and whoever owned the unit before should've wiped it before selling/trading for no more reason than privacy - and I could understand if the shop offered a goodwill gesture - but to expect compensation for something like that? Perhaps she's after a free phone ... /cynical.

Comments

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,802
    Isn't money the best way to discourage the store from doing it again?
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Isn't money the best way to discourage the store from doing it again?
    it's a way of doing it ...

    I was just a bit aghast that the mother would say "we deserve a bit of compensation" - not "I think the shop should pay compensation" - it was WE DESERVE - rather than "They deserve to pay compensation" - as it was the action (or rather inaction) of the shop that caused the issue - and not what the mother/daughter did. Semantics and possibly just an inappropriate use of English.
  • mrb123
    mrb123 Posts: 4,639
    Bet the Dad had a good look through the images before he took it back to the shop. Obviously just to assess the amount of compo his daughter deserves.
  • gethinceri
    gethinceri Posts: 1,535
    Well, he'd already splashed out on the phone once....
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Slowbike wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Isn't money the best way to discourage the store from doing it again?
    it's a way of doing it ...

    I was just a bit aghast that the mother would say "we deserve a bit of compensation" - not "I think the shop should pay compensation" - it was WE DESERVE - rather than "They deserve to pay compensation" - as it was the action (or rather inaction) of the shop that caused the issue - and not what the mother/daughter did. Semantics and possibly just an inappropriate use of English.

    The constructive response from the mother would be to ask the shop what measures they are putting in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. But of course it isn't about that. But then of course the fact that she was buying a second hand phone as a present implies significant poverty and it's maybe understandable in the circumstances that she grabs at any opportunity for a bit of extra cash. Certainly I know it would be easier for me to choose to not make a big deal out of it.

    Could be worse - at least it isn't a compensation claim from the NHS......
    Faster than a tent.......
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,026
    Gethinceri wrote:
    Well, he'd already splashed out on the phone once....
    I see where you are coming from.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Gethinceri wrote:
    Well, he'd already splashed out on the phone once....
    I see where you are coming from.
    See, men like you are what gives this forum a bad name
  • craker
    craker Posts: 1,739
    Rolf F wrote:
    But then of course the fact that she was buying a second hand phone as a present implies significant poverty

    Just. Not. True.
  • Slowbike wrote:

    Don't get me wrong - the shop should've wiped the unit prior to reselling - and whoever owned the unit before should've wiped it before selling/trading for no more reason than privacy

    I'd want a bit of disinfectant on it, not just a wipe.
    Never be tempted to race against a Barclays Cycle Hire bike. If you do, there are only two outcomes. Of these, by far the better is that you now have the scalp of a Boris Bike.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Using the "factory reset" option in settings is no guarantee that everything will be deleted apparently.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Shortfall wrote:
    Using the "factory reset" option in settings is no guarantee that everything will be deleted apparently.

    Is that Android? I must admit - I just use iPhones - overpriced - but simpler - and having used them, when I get a replacement I just restore my current backup onto the new device.... job done - as you'd expect with Apple ...
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,427
    craker wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    But then of course the fact that she was buying a second hand phone as a present implies significant poverty
    Just. Not. True.
    Indeed, I won't pay for a new phone for my kids. We're not poor, but neither are we rich. The cost of new phones and the abuse they get it's just not worth it. Even a used phone is a fair chunk of cash.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    Rolf F wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Isn't money the best way to discourage the store from doing it again?
    it's a way of doing it ...

    I was just a bit aghast that the mother would say "we deserve a bit of compensation" - not "I think the shop should pay compensation" - it was WE DESERVE - rather than "They deserve to pay compensation" - as it was the action (or rather inaction) of the shop that caused the issue - and not what the mother/daughter did. Semantics and possibly just an inappropriate use of English.

    The constructive response from the mother would be to ask the shop what measures they are putting in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. But of course it isn't about that. But then of course the fact that she was buying a second hand phone as a present implies significant poverty and it's maybe understandable in the circumstances that she grabs at any opportunity for a bit of extra cash. Certainly I know it would be easier for me to choose to not make a big deal out of it.

    Could be worse - at least it isn't a compensation claim from the NHS......

    significant poverty? get jogging dude.

    significant poverty is not being able to feed your family not buying a second hand telephone.


    #firstworldproblem
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,916
    Rolf F wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Isn't money the best way to discourage the store from doing it again?
    it's a way of doing it ...

    I was just a bit aghast that the mother would say "we deserve a bit of compensation" - not "I think the shop should pay compensation" - it was WE DESERVE - rather than "They deserve to pay compensation" - as it was the action (or rather inaction) of the shop that caused the issue - and not what the mother/daughter did. Semantics and possibly just an inappropriate use of English.

    The constructive response from the mother would be to ask the shop what measures they are putting in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. But of course it isn't about that. But then of course the fact that she was buying a second hand phone as a present implies significant poverty and it's maybe understandable in the circumstances that she grabs at any opportunity for a bit of extra cash. Certainly I know it would be easier for me to choose to not make a big deal out of it.

    Could be worse - at least it isn't a compensation claim from the NHS......

    significant poverty? get jogging dude.

    significant poverty is not being able to feed your family not buying a second hand telephone.


    #firstworldproblem

    If you are holding down three zero-hours jobs to make ends meet then you might need a mobile to be able to work. You sound a bit like my grandparents worrying about people spending too long on the (land line) phone because they grew up when they were an expensive luxury.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Isn't money the best way to discourage the store from doing it again?
    it's a way of doing it ...

    I was just a bit aghast that the mother would say "we deserve a bit of compensation" - not "I think the shop should pay compensation" - it was WE DESERVE - rather than "They deserve to pay compensation" - as it was the action (or rather inaction) of the shop that caused the issue - and not what the mother/daughter did. Semantics and possibly just an inappropriate use of English.

    The constructive response from the mother would be to ask the shop what measures they are putting in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. But of course it isn't about that. But then of course the fact that she was buying a second hand phone as a present implies significant poverty and it's maybe understandable in the circumstances that she grabs at any opportunity for a bit of extra cash. Certainly I know it would be easier for me to choose to not make a big deal out of it.

    Could be worse - at least it isn't a compensation claim from the NHS......

    significant poverty? get jogging dude.

    significant poverty is not being able to feed your family not buying a second hand telephone.


    #firstworldproblem

    If you are holding down three zero-hours jobs to make ends meet then you might need a mobile to be able to work. You sound a bit like my grandparents worrying about people spending too long on the (land line) phone because they grew up when they were an expensive luxury.

    it was for the daughter. she is a child. she's not holding down any job.

    agree that you will need a phone for the above scenario but a £40 Nokia will do that. To have pictures and video of porn on it this was obviously a smartphone, so I refer to post passim.

    #firstworldproblem
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,923
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Isn't money the best way to discourage the store from doing it again?
    it's a way of doing it ...

    I was just a bit aghast that the mother would say "we deserve a bit of compensation" - not "I think the shop should pay compensation" - it was WE DESERVE - rather than "They deserve to pay compensation" - as it was the action (or rather inaction) of the shop that caused the issue - and not what the mother/daughter did. Semantics and possibly just an inappropriate use of English.

    The constructive response from the mother would be to ask the shop what measures they are putting in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. But of course it isn't about that. But then of course the fact that she was buying a second hand phone as a present implies significant poverty and it's maybe understandable in the circumstances that she grabs at any opportunity for a bit of extra cash. Certainly I know it would be easier for me to choose to not make a big deal out of it.

    Could be worse - at least it isn't a compensation claim from the NHS......

    significant poverty? get jogging dude.

    significant poverty is not being able to feed your family not buying a second hand telephone.


    #firstworldproblem

    If you are holding down three zero-hours jobs to make ends meet then you might need a mobile to be able to work. You sound a bit like my grandparents worrying about people spending too long on the (land line) phone because they grew up when they were an expensive luxury.

    it was for the daughter. she is a child. she's not holding down any job.

    agree that you will need a phone for the above scenario but a £40 Nokia will do that. To have pictures and video of porn on it this was obviously a smartphone, so I refer to post passim.

    #firstworldproblem
    Well put MF.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,916
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Isn't money the best way to discourage the store from doing it again?
    it's a way of doing it ...

    I was just a bit aghast that the mother would say "we deserve a bit of compensation" - not "I think the shop should pay compensation" - it was WE DESERVE - rather than "They deserve to pay compensation" - as it was the action (or rather inaction) of the shop that caused the issue - and not what the mother/daughter did. Semantics and possibly just an inappropriate use of English.

    The constructive response from the mother would be to ask the shop what measures they are putting in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. But of course it isn't about that. But then of course the fact that she was buying a second hand phone as a present implies significant poverty and it's maybe understandable in the circumstances that she grabs at any opportunity for a bit of extra cash. Certainly I know it would be easier for me to choose to not make a big deal out of it.

    Could be worse - at least it isn't a compensation claim from the NHS......

    significant poverty? get jogging dude.

    significant poverty is not being able to feed your family not buying a second hand telephone.


    #firstworldproblem

    If you are holding down three zero-hours jobs to make ends meet then you might need a mobile to be able to work. You sound a bit like my grandparents worrying about people spending too long on the (land line) phone because they grew up when they were an expensive luxury.

    it was for the daughter. she is a child. she's not holding down any job.

    agree that you will need a phone for the above scenario but a £40 Nokia will do that. To have pictures and video of porn on it this was obviously a smartphone, so I refer to post passim.

    #firstworldproblem

    Of course in that example. I meant more generally that ownership of a mobile ≠ a comfortable middle class life.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • dinyull
    dinyull Posts: 2,979
    Was it a second hand ethical smart phone?
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,427
    Dinyull wrote:
    Was it a second hand ethical smart phone?
    It wasn't a very ethical phone if it was showing porn to a minor.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    I'm not bothered about how much money the family does or doesn't have ...
    a smart phone for a 9yo - well - there are loads of s/h smart phones available and inevitably some are very low cost - smart phone can mean more to a family than just enabling the child to play online games - it can feed back positional information back to the family too (says the guy who's contemplating what's going to happen when little slowbike is old enough to go out on his own)
    I don't think it particularly clever for the shop to have sold on an uncleaned phone - assuming that's what happened - but mistakes do happen.
    I have no issue with the shop offering something to the family to compensate for any loss & distress caused.

    the only bit that grates is that the mother believes "we deserve" compensation as though they've earnt it.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Isn't money the best way to discourage the store from doing it again?
    it's a way of doing it ...

    I was just a bit aghast that the mother would say "we deserve a bit of compensation" - not "I think the shop should pay compensation" - it was WE DESERVE - rather than "They deserve to pay compensation" - as it was the action (or rather inaction) of the shop that caused the issue - and not what the mother/daughter did. Semantics and possibly just an inappropriate use of English.

    The constructive response from the mother would be to ask the shop what measures they are putting in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. But of course it isn't about that. But then of course the fact that she was buying a second hand phone as a present implies significant poverty and it's maybe understandable in the circumstances that she grabs at any opportunity for a bit of extra cash. Certainly I know it would be easier for me to choose to not make a big deal out of it.

    Could be worse - at least it isn't a compensation claim from the NHS......

    significant poverty? get jogging dude.

    significant poverty is not being able to feed your family not buying a second hand telephone.


    #firstworldproblem

    If you are holding down three zero-hours jobs to make ends meet then you might need a mobile to be able to work. You sound a bit like my grandparents worrying about people spending too long on the (land line) phone because they grew up when they were an expensive luxury.

    it was for the daughter. she is a child. she's not holding down any job.

    agree that you will need a phone for the above scenario but a £40 Nokia will do that. To have pictures and video of porn on it this was obviously a smartphone, so I refer to post passim.

    #firstworldproblem

    Of course in that example. I meant more generally that ownership of a mobile ≠ a comfortable middle class life.

    sorry - are you saying that holding down 3 zero hour contracts is a comfortable middle class life?

    #seriously?
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,916
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Isn't money the best way to discourage the store from doing it again?
    it's a way of doing it ...

    I was just a bit aghast that the mother would say "we deserve a bit of compensation" - not "I think the shop should pay compensation" - it was WE DESERVE - rather than "They deserve to pay compensation" - as it was the action (or rather inaction) of the shop that caused the issue - and not what the mother/daughter did. Semantics and possibly just an inappropriate use of English.

    The constructive response from the mother would be to ask the shop what measures they are putting in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. But of course it isn't about that. But then of course the fact that she was buying a second hand phone as a present implies significant poverty and it's maybe understandable in the circumstances that she grabs at any opportunity for a bit of extra cash. Certainly I know it would be easier for me to choose to not make a big deal out of it.

    Could be worse - at least it isn't a compensation claim from the NHS......

    significant poverty? get jogging dude.

    significant poverty is not being able to feed your family not buying a second hand telephone.


    #firstworldproblem

    If you are holding down three zero-hours jobs to make ends meet then you might need a mobile to be able to work. You sound a bit like my grandparents worrying about people spending too long on the (land line) phone because they grew up when they were an expensive luxury.

    it was for the daughter. she is a child. she's not holding down any job.

    agree that you will need a phone for the above scenario but a £40 Nokia will do that. To have pictures and video of porn on it this was obviously a smartphone, so I refer to post passim.

    #firstworldproblem

    Of course in that example. I meant more generally that ownership of a mobile ≠ a comfortable middle class life.

    sorry - are you saying that holding down 3 zero hour contracts is a comfortable middle class life?

    #seriously?

    What? Of course not. The opposite in fact.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Isn't money the best way to discourage the store from doing it again?
    it's a way of doing it ...

    I was just a bit aghast that the mother would say "we deserve a bit of compensation" - not "I think the shop should pay compensation" - it was WE DESERVE - rather than "They deserve to pay compensation" - as it was the action (or rather inaction) of the shop that caused the issue - and not what the mother/daughter did. Semantics and possibly just an inappropriate use of English.

    The constructive response from the mother would be to ask the shop what measures they are putting in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. But of course it isn't about that. But then of course the fact that she was buying a second hand phone as a present implies significant poverty and it's maybe understandable in the circumstances that she grabs at any opportunity for a bit of extra cash. Certainly I know it would be easier for me to choose to not make a big deal out of it.

    Could be worse - at least it isn't a compensation claim from the NHS......

    significant poverty? get jogging dude.

    significant poverty is not being able to feed your family not buying a second hand telephone.


    #firstworldproblem

    If you are holding down three zero-hours jobs to make ends meet then you might need a mobile to be able to work. You sound a bit like my grandparents worrying about people spending too long on the (land line) phone because they grew up when they were an expensive luxury.

    it was for the daughter. she is a child. she's not holding down any job.

    agree that you will need a phone for the above scenario but a £40 Nokia will do that. To have pictures and video of porn on it this was obviously a smartphone, so I refer to post passim.

    #firstworldproblem

    Of course in that example. I meant more generally that ownership of a mobile ≠ a comfortable middle class life.

    sorry - are you saying that holding down 3 zero hour contracts is a comfortable middle class life?

    #seriously?

    What? Of course not. The opposite in fact.

    but thats what you said in your post.

    ownership of a mobile phone (squiggly thing that may not be the same sqiggly thing on my screen as yours) means a comfortable middle class life

    ergo this family have a mobile ergo middle class.

    #confused
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    its a =/= i.e does not equal

    #zoomin
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    aaahhh - that explains it. looks like a random sqiggle.

    #speedy
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Apart from Rolf F who obviously gets his butler to light the woodburner using £50 notes, I think it's generally agreed that having a smartphone is no indicator of wealth and buying a second hand smartphone is not an indication of poverty and not necessarily a bad idea anyway given how quickly they go out of date and especially so for a child who will invariably lose or break it.
    Just make sure the porn is deleted first.

    Even among the poorest people on the streets where I live who have the appearance of drug addicts, almost all of them have smartphones.
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    oh - as an aside: apols to rsjt1 for mf's misinterpretation of his post.

    #humble
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,916
    Quite unnecessary. ≈∞≈
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Matthewfalle
    Matthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    rjsterry wrote:
    Quite unnecessary. ≈∞≈

    microwave?

    #mannersmakeththeman
    #stopmessingwithourheads
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,916
    #swimminggoggles
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition