Tweet
I watched a child pick icing off a cake in a well-known supermarket and eat it. I told the child's mother who didn't seem to care. I then spoke to a manager who moved into a corner, said "deep breath", shut her eyes, and ostentatiously breathed in and out as if she was on a wellness retreat in a television comedy. I asked her if she was going to speak to the mother and she disappeared. On returning I asked her if she had sorted it out as I would like a satisfactory end to this, and had she removed the cake? The staff member then accused me of invading her space and moved about seven feet from me. Because of the distance I had to speak slightly louder, she then accused me of shouting at her.
I was dissatisfied so wrote to customer services in great detail. Their reply said they had a 5-star rating; they had sorted it out but it was confidential; and a security guard had witnessed 'aggressive behaviour' - although they did not accuse me. There was no security guard present when this conversation took place.
The member of staff should have immediately removed the cake the child had touched and examined all the others - the child could have touched others before I saw him and also there is a danger of cross-contamination. This could be serious if the child had touched nuts and the person who then bought the cakes had a nut allergy.
Is the supermarket being deliberately evasive for legal reasons? Are they worried that if they say the member of staff did not act in the correct way it would be an admission of guilt? I cannot believe this well-respected supermarket is indifferent to food hygiene.
I was dissatisfied so wrote to customer services in great detail. Their reply said they had a 5-star rating; they had sorted it out but it was confidential; and a security guard had witnessed 'aggressive behaviour' - although they did not accuse me. There was no security guard present when this conversation took place.
The member of staff should have immediately removed the cake the child had touched and examined all the others - the child could have touched others before I saw him and also there is a danger of cross-contamination. This could be serious if the child had touched nuts and the person who then bought the cakes had a nut allergy.
Is the supermarket being deliberately evasive for legal reasons? Are they worried that if they say the member of staff did not act in the correct way it would be an admission of guilt? I cannot believe this well-respected supermarket is indifferent to food hygiene.
Comment