[BC] Station Rules compliance (AOL Webmail)

[Robert Meuser]

WFIFeng at aol.com wrote:

>In 
>
>If a kleptomaniac enters a store and the Loss Prevention dept knows this person and has caught them repeatedly shoplifting, are they just supposed to turn their backs when so-and-so pockets an item, and tries to leave without paying for it? That is tantamount to what I am hearing, here... if a station is *known* to be a *repeat offender*, are we just supposed to look the other way? If my neighbor walks his dog and lets it pee on the grass at the curb in front of my house repeatedly (technically not my property, but right in front of it), thus killing it, am I supposed to just accept that? I don't think so!
>

>That is twisted logic. If a store has a loss prevention program inside their house, they can do what they want when they want. You're in their house so it is their rules. If they demanded a full strip search of every patron and felt that the business could sustain that, so be it. What you propose is going into someone else's house and imposing your rules. That does not play well with many people. If the FCC wanted your advice as to how to run their agency, they would hire you. You would have a nice big GS rated salary, fabulous benefits and almost complete immunity from termination.
>

>R
>  
>
>
>
>  
>