Warning to all fruitchatters
-
- Member
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:45 pm
- Location: kent
- Ruler of The World
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:51 pm
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/c ... -32273782/
C u n t s IMHO
C u n t s IMHO
Roulette free since December 2011.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:51 pm
why would they want to start paying out compensation claims like that, £9000 represent the actual loss and damages, remember they are oblidged to run the business in the interest of shareholders, to start paying out claims every time a shop gets robbed does not make commercial sense.harry2 wrote:http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/c ... -32273782/
C u n t s IMHO
Valid claim if the £9000 represents the loss of earnings, costs incurred with things like councilling.
- Ruler of The World
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:51 pm
If you decide to work in a betting shop, everyone knows the risks, you are trained about them I am sure and robbery is always something that CAN happen. If you accept the job, you accept all the perks and risks - even if the only perk is getting paid.
This world has gone insane. Do I get paid compensation if my house is burgled or I get mugged?
This world has gone insane. Do I get paid compensation if my house is burgled or I get mugged?
- Ruler of The World
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:51 pm
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:51 pm
mr lugsy wrote:if the criminal injuries compensation board deem it to be a valid claim then yes.
A friend got a couple of grand for being "mugged", nothing was stolen but got a bloody nose... took a long time for the claim to be processed. Not sure on the qualifying critria, other than you have to be a victem of crime.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:51 pm
yeah and start paying out such claims it will be attractive to stage robberies, which must happen all the time anyway, hand over some cash, plus the claim, split all the proceeds.Ruler of The World wrote:Right but if I wasn't there can I claim for stress and trauma due to losses? THE FUCKING STAFF AREN'T EVEN LOSING THEIR OWN MONEY!!!!!
- mr lugsy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5776
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:19 pm
- Location: looking over your shoulder
- Contact:
an employer has a duty of care to their staff afaic. it's not like you're signing up for a stint in afghanistan.
if it's expected that you will have to face regular danger and abuse they should prepare you for it properly.
also, their tactics of not reporting fobt crime to distort the size of the problem doesn't have a positive effect on their staff's perception of company attitudes towards their safety.
if the coop can afford a security guard then why the hell can't the bookies
if it's expected that you will have to face regular danger and abuse they should prepare you for it properly.
also, their tactics of not reporting fobt crime to distort the size of the problem doesn't have a positive effect on their staff's perception of company attitudes towards their safety.
if the coop can afford a security guard then why the hell can't the bookies

Corals in Walsall town centre. Magnetic door locks; 2 security guards; and some serious caging around the cash desk. Maybe they also have a panic room?!
In my opinion, it seems like an unreasonable argument to suggest that this sets a legal precedent that goes too far. If part of the remedy is fitting magnetic door locks, then that seems like a fairly cheap fix. If they're concerned about retrospective claims, their legal team should have considered this and dealt with it long ago. They could have done this through issuing a procedural update, detailing a protocol in the event of a robbery. This could then be looked at by a legal team and minimise the amounts of claims they would pay from staff.
However, I don't think that the staff are being paid danger money. The bookies are buoyant in the worst economic climate in recent history, and could surely have settled this with the employee in question out of court - if they wanted to avoid setting a precedent. Unfortunately, the approach will surely result in further job losses eventually. How long will it be before the counter is nothing but a distant memory, bets are places only via terminals, and maybe one member of staff patrols a whole area of shops, just to collect the money? Technological autonomy renders employees problematic at an alarming rate.
In my opinion, it seems like an unreasonable argument to suggest that this sets a legal precedent that goes too far. If part of the remedy is fitting magnetic door locks, then that seems like a fairly cheap fix. If they're concerned about retrospective claims, their legal team should have considered this and dealt with it long ago. They could have done this through issuing a procedural update, detailing a protocol in the event of a robbery. This could then be looked at by a legal team and minimise the amounts of claims they would pay from staff.
However, I don't think that the staff are being paid danger money. The bookies are buoyant in the worst economic climate in recent history, and could surely have settled this with the employee in question out of court - if they wanted to avoid setting a precedent. Unfortunately, the approach will surely result in further job losses eventually. How long will it be before the counter is nothing but a distant memory, bets are places only via terminals, and maybe one member of staff patrols a whole area of shops, just to collect the money? Technological autonomy renders employees problematic at an alarming rate.
- Ruler of The World
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:51 pm
I set out on this thread to criticise Ladbrokes, that new free spins rule is a dirty trick in my opinion and they should be ashamed of themselves.
However, looking at the press and the way these TV documentaries are just out to make them and all bookies look like a bunch of crooks who are stealing from people is a disgrace. They are merely providing the facilities for something that there is clearly a demand for and which is legal.
All these betting shops people are complaining about being opened would not stay open unless they were having money spent in them. As I have pointed out on another thread, people have more power than they think and need only to boycott a shop to assure its eventual closure.
No one is making the headlines for making money like the betting shops are. Why not make documentaries about companies which manufacture weapons and moan about their profits?
However, looking at the press and the way these TV documentaries are just out to make them and all bookies look like a bunch of crooks who are stealing from people is a disgrace. They are merely providing the facilities for something that there is clearly a demand for and which is legal.
All these betting shops people are complaining about being opened would not stay open unless they were having money spent in them. As I have pointed out on another thread, people have more power than they think and need only to boycott a shop to assure its eventual closure.
No one is making the headlines for making money like the betting shops are. Why not make documentaries about companies which manufacture weapons and moan about their profits?
- trayhop123
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4901
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:21 pm
- Location: leicester
never seen security gards in bookies before , its a good idea though, , , , im sure they could afford it , , , but surely they would have to employ at least two on a split shift basis , as opening times etc are generally 12 hours a day 7 days a week..,,,,,,, , , ps are you pulling our legs will or is walsall really that bad lol ?
Little discipline = BIG issue
**** ****
**** ****
- Ruler of The World
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:51 pm