Jared Fogle/Subway scandal...presumption of guilt?

[Chisoxfn]

Do you think that will actually be investigated by someone?

I would think a claim like that would result investigations from those on the board at subway (presume they have a BOD). I would think people would lose jobs on it and the company would do an investigation. Any well ran organization would do so...then again, most organizations would have handled this information differently (or so I'd like to think).

 

I'm very confident my organization would have never let something like this happen.

[Chisoxfn]

I don't know that there will be an official investigation, but I think there will be enough backlash to put a dent in Subway's business. I can see some of their least profitable stores closing or switching to another chain.

 

I feel bad for the people who own the Subway by me. They're great people, they designate one day each month for each elementary school in the area and donate all of their profit from the day to the school.

Yep - That is the hard part, all of the franchisee's who had absolutely nothing to do with this getting impacted because of some people at the top who made a deplorable decision (allegedly).

[Dick Allen]

I had 3 Subways within 3 blocks of my home, one was actually really good, but they all closed in the past year. Different franchisees too. The great Subway, the guy who ran it was a Sox fan and would always give you a couple of cookies or free chips if you where wearing any White Sox swag. Maybe Subway was on the downslide anyway. This obviously won't help. I read where there are more Subway sandwich shops than Starbuck's and McDonald's combined.

[StrangeSox]

the "lower end" fast-food restaurants have all been declining for several years now as people look to allegedly healthier, fresher and a little more expensive options e.g. Chipotle. The exception IIRC is Taco Bell thanks to their all-in attitude towards the most bizarre 'food' products ever produced like turning Doritos into taco shells.

[Jenksismyhero]

Sounds like a pretty great civil case against Subway to me.

[Y2HH]

the "lower end" fast-food restaurants have all been declining for several years now as people look to allegedly healthier, fresher and a little more expensive options e.g. Chipotle. The exception IIRC is Taco Bell thanks to their all-in attitude towards the most bizarre 'food' products ever produced like turning Doritos into taco shells.

 

I think people are putting more into this than there is...McDonalds is declining because of a number of factors, but the biggest factor (which nobody talks about) is there is no where left for them to grow. And Wall Street hates it when companies like Apple/McDonalds cease "growing"...but it's hard to grow when you're already everywhere.

 

Also, while "declining" could be an accurate term, it's also a bit of a misnomer if you look at the actual numbers. McDonalds just made 1.2 billion dollars in profit last quarter, after making "just" 900 million profit the quarter before that. Let's keep in mind this is a company that made 4.75 BILLION in profit last year ... again, Billion with a B, so it's not like they're in trouble like these analysts want you to believe.

 

Chipotle is kind of in the middle of a boom period, but that'll wear thin as time marches on, as it always does. Remember a few years ago when Krispee Kreme entered that same boom period, and for a span of about 8 years they were going to put Dunkin' Donuts out of business while they were trading at insane prices on wall street? We all know how that worked out.

 

Chiplote is a decent restaurant and an even better business, but it's not nearly as scalable as McDonalds because of how they choose to source their food...the more they expand, the more people will find corners are being cut. They'll have to expand their "farming" business to compensate with increased deliveries to more and more locations...and when things get really big...they often get out of control...as they will with Chipotle. They're a Wall Street darling because it's easy to grow right now. An unconfirmed number puts them at 1800 locations -- while McDonalds has almost 40,000. They're in the same industry, but they're still an apples to oranges comparison.

[Y2HH]

Jimmy John's is quality too. Their chips are excellent.

 

I find Jimmy John's boring...there is really nothing unique about their sandwiches at all. You can go to ANY grocery store and make a Jimmy John's sub.

 

Potbelly, Snarf's, places like that...you can't just replicate their food at home without really trying.

[greg775]

I find Jimmy John's boring...there is really nothing unique about their sandwiches at all. You can go to ANY grocery store and make a Jimmy John's sub.

 

Potbelly, Snarf's, places like that...you can't just replicate their food at home without really trying.

I agree. Jimmy John's is not a great sandwich.

[cabiness42]

Sounds like a pretty great civil case against Subway to me.

 

By whom?

[Jenksismyhero]

By whom?

 

Well, right, that's the problem. If all of his "victims" were prostitutes there's probably not a link. But if there are more victims - and I wouldn't doubt there are - and they have links to some Subway event or initiative, and Subway knew about Fogle's actions but did nothing, I think that'd be a pretty solid case.

[StrangeSox]

Uh, why is victim in scare-quotes? Weren't they all underage?

[Kyyle23]

Uh, why is victim in scare-quotes? Weren't they all underage?

 

I think he is trying to say that while they were victims in age, that they were consenting in what they did with Jared.

[StrangeSox]

The whole idea of statutory rape and age of consent laws is that children can't legally consent. And it ignores the pretty obvious exploitation of prostitutes and especially underage prostitutes that sort of negates any idea of consent anyway.

 

eta:

Mills says Fogle told her he'd had sex with child prostitutes, some as young as 9

Edited August 31, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

The whole idea of statutory rape and age of consent laws is that children can't legally consent. And it ignores the pretty obvious exploitation of prostitutes and especially underage prostitutes that sort of negates any idea of consent anyway.

 

eta:

 

I was referring to the 16/17 year olds. They may be exploited, they may not be. We really don't know.

[pettie4sox]

Is pedophilia just something you are born with?

[cabiness42]

I was referring to the 16/17 year olds. They may be exploited, they may not be. We really don't know.

 

Regardless of whether or not the 16/17 year olds were doing this on their own or had a pimp/trafficker, they are exploited in the sense that they aren't of the age of consent (maybe 17 is legal in some states) and the "customer" is exploiting them whether or not he had to pay.

[Balta1701]

Regardless of whether or not the 16/17 year olds were doing this on their own or had a pimp/trafficker, they are exploited in the sense that they aren't of the age of consent (maybe 17 is legal in some states) and the "customer" is exploiting them whether or not he had to pay.

According to brief search the age is 16 in Indiana (now my search history feels icky) and the maximum penalties could have been as much as 50 years.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah a lot of states it's 16, some including Illinois and New York are 17. All of Canada is 16. I also did an icky google search which is now in my history.

[StrangeSox]

1) that's what incognito mode is for

2) I have a hard time imaging a situation where a 16-17 year old prostitute isn't being exploited and deserves scare-quotes.

[cabiness42]

Yeah a lot of states it's 16, some including Illinois and New York are 17. All of Canada is 16. I also did an icky google search which is now in my history.

 

I'm sorry, that's just messed up. Did the people who passed these laws not have 16-17 year old daughters?

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm sorry, that's just messed up. Did the people who passed these laws not have 16-17 year old daughters?

 

Back in the day when you lived to 40 or 50, getting married and having kids by 17-18 was very common. It's a more recent trend to wait so long to be married/have children.

[cabiness42]

Back in the day when you lived to 40 or 50, getting married and having kids by 17-18 was very common. It's a more recent trend to wait so long to be married/have children.

 

That's why state legislatures meet every year, because times change and laws become outdated.

[Jenksismyhero]

1) that's what incognito mode is for

2) I have a hard time imaging a situation where a 16-17 year old prostitute isn't being exploited and deserves scare-quotes.

 

I think it's more likely than not that they are being exploited, but I remember 16-17 year old girls in my high school who acted 30. They knew exactly what they were doing and why. Could I imagine a scenario where one of those girls would accept tens of thousands for one night? Yep. Doesn't mean it's right, but I think they're less of a victim than 9 year olds. They, most likely, at least had a say in the matter.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Back in the day when you lived to 40 or 50,

 

Don't confuse average life life expectancy at birth with average lifespan of adults. Generally speaking, infant and childhood mortality rates in pre-industrial cultures (including many places in the world today) are high and drag the "average life expectancy at birth" way down to 30 or 40. But if you actually make it to your mid-teens or so, odds are you're going to live into your 60's-70's. That's true of increasing lifespan in the US in the 20th century, too.

 

getting married and having kids by 17-18 was very common. It's a more recent trend to wait so long to be married/have children.

 

Age of consent is lower than 16 in probably the overwhelming majority of the world.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's why state legislatures meet every year, because times change and laws become outdated.

 

I guess. I don't know that that's very high on the priority list of what needs to get done though. I doubt there's a lot of 40 year olds marrying 16 years olds out there.