In the box – Bonus (2)
Sequel to In the bin - Disbelief (1)
In the bin
Bonus - part 2
After my daughter and I were wrongly arrested as suspects of theft, the realisation of this incredible accumulation of amateurish blunder sank in. I decided to write a letter of complaint to both the police headquarters and the big smurf at the supermarket.
I meticulously outlined the images of the arrest and all the adverse consequences we had suffered as a result. I showed some sympathy for the desperation surrounding shoplifting but, on the other hand, strongly commented on the incompetent actions of the security guard, the hellish drive to the station and the ups and downs - no correction, only woe - during our stay in the cell.
The police responded fairly quickly and, after a preliminary interview, I was called by a special complaints officer who gave me ample opportunity to express my disbelief and denounce all the blunders. A few days later, I received a written report which mainly emphasised that it had been done according to protocol, but that they had learned from it and that it had been discussed internally to prevent the same thing happening again. No flowers, no nicely coloured plasters on the wounds.
On the supermarket side, things remained suspiciously quiet. I sent some more e-mails and finally, after several reminders, I received a letter from a small company in Almere. At first I still thought it was advertising and had almost dumped the letter in the waste paper. Salutation: Ms Kuiper. And then I knew enough: this is not going to work. I had judged that correctly. They had looked at the camera footage and maintained that we had been caught in the act. The one-year supermarket ban could not be revoked. The letter was further filled with endless clichés and protocol drivel and ended with the incredibly original bouncer: we trust you have been sufficiently informed, signed by the FH Super VOF. Huh? I called this company and got the chief on the line. The supermarket in question turned out to be a franchise outlet which they own, hence their response. It had taken so long because my letter had wandered quite a bit and had ended up with the supermarket manager and his security guard. Really, yes, really. They had reviewed the footage again and maintained their position. Interesting. So these two people who have already caused so much misery reject the prosecution's verdict? I asked the best man what he himself had seen on the footage then. A lot of stammering followed. 'I didn't watch the footage because it is deleted after two days'. It became crystal clear to me, there was no more honour to be gained from this hopeless bumbling.
We are now three months on and I have my groceries delivered by several driving supermarkets with friendly delivery drivers. I have also discovered all kinds of nice shops in the neighbourhood and walk many more healthy metres than before. All in all, a huge step forward. The ban may be extended indefinitely, gladly even. Of course, I couldn't resist informing the big smurf about all the blunder but I haven't received a reply to date.
What does such a rash action cost our society, with the supermarket taking the police for their ride? How often does this happen? Do the math: two cops for arrest, twice two cops for transport, several cops for detention and surveillance, two lawyers, a doctor, the assistant public prosecutor, two detectives). What did it achieve? Nothing. Well, for me anyway, a bonus of no less than 6 Euros....
Marianne KuiperOwner Efficient Hotel Partner & Music Meeting Lounge
Intermediary in finding and booking the perfect location Read more blogs? www.efficienthotelpartner.nl
Hospitality service, with love for the profession!
Contact Us
