Why weren't both teams at the same location?? Ridiculous! the girls were a complete shambles all the way through.

Sugar bottled out... they should have been docked money for cheating people out of money. Their selling techniques were appalling. If they had sold an ice cream to my kids and jacked up the price like that they would've ended up wearing it!

Having said that I'm glad that parody of 'street yoof' Mahamed has gone, he was so annoying.

I agree they should have been at the same or very similar locations.
But I'm not sure the girls would have lost then though. The early mistake concentrated them on price so they started out high. The boys started low and went even lower - they had no real reason to try to undercut the competion as they had a mobile unit and hit on the idea of going to the punters on the beach. If someone is bringing you the ices then its a premium service you would pay more for.

1. They chose their locations, presumably from a list. If they boys did not realise that the seaside would have lots of competition and that at theme parks you pay way more, that's their mistake.

2. I completely agree that the girls should have got a bollocking for their dishonest and shady practices.

Should've yes. But LordSurAlan doesn't rate customer satisfaction very highly - remember he reamed out a team for compensating a hotel they couldn't supply bread to on the principle they weren't going to get any further business off them anyway...

I think he would actually of been quite proud of them for doing that, its business at the end of the day

If people are silly enough to pay, they have hardly been cheated. All business and advertising exists on the basis that people pay as much as you can get for something that costs less, and by persuading people they want what you have - even if they probably don't need it, and wouldn't have bought it without persuasion..

I agree that their selling techniques were appalling. If it had been me buying an ice-cream, I would have started negotiating on the price after being told what it is with the unexpected extras, and offered them the ice-cream back if they didn't play ball. Politely, but firmly.

If I was the mother of the child who was charged £3.80 for an ice cream, without the mother being present to approve the purchase, I would have refused to pay and then complain to the park's manangement regarding the underhand selling techniques.

They asked the child if she would like an ice cream, of course she was not going to refuse, piled on the extras and then called the mother over to pay. Outrageous. Should have been docked some money for that.

Definitely. If the child in question had been older, with some money sense, it would still have been bad but not as outrageous as offering two scoops, sprinkles etc to a little child. If I'd have been that mother I would have refused to pay, handed it back, and gone elsewhere. And I'd have certainly complained.

They gave that child an ice-cream. I'd have then told them to get lost when they asked for the money.