Assaulted by Tesco store security

Tesco_Hater

Why's the guy being black got anything to do with it?

notjustanyone

Tesco_Hater wrote: »

Why's the guy being black got anything to do with it?

I think you'll find you've just answered your own question there



I suggest you go read your original post, then ask yourself the same question you've just asked me


Nail on the head time me thinks :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

viv0147

It seems to me that everyone is missing the point they are all referring to the fact that he mentions one of of the security guards was black! now if we can forget the fact he mentioned that even though one of the guards was black.He has every right to claim for common assault,my advise would be for him to report it to the police and let them handle it.
Just a word of warning! if you have a pacemaker dont stand in the doorway because it can as it did in my case sent off the alarm, luckily I didn't have too prove it the security guard believed me, my only other option was to rip my chest open.

notjustanyone

I don't think we are missing the point, everyone understands the manhandling that had taken place, it's just the emphasis the OP keeps putting on one of the security guards

unholyangel

We also understand that the "manhandling" wouldnt have taken place if the OP had acted in a reasonable manner.

It sounds exactly the same as a post last week just that one didnt have accusations of assault in them. Someone who did stop when asked but refused to show their receipt to anyone other than a cop and was subsequently banned from said store. It may sound unfair but ultimately, if you shop there, it is under their terms and conditions.

Several have said there are those making the "race" thing out to be something when it wasnt. Well i believe the OP is doing the same with the "assault". It used to be years ago that actual harm had to take place. Now apparently we're all wimps who feel terror when someone even puts a hand on us.

It is becoming an absolute joke what people want compansation for and we are fast turning into America where you can sue a restaurant after slipping on a spilled drink...........the same drink that you threw at your boyfriend just seconds earlier.

Is that really the kind of place you wish to live? Instead we should be taking the "water off a ducks back" and "no harm done" viewpoint.

Especially when our actions are responsible for the consequences!

Vomityspice

unholyangel wrote: »

We also understand that the "manhandling" wouldnt have taken place if the OP had acted in a reasonable manner.

It sounds exactly the same as a post last week just that one didnt have accusations of assault in them. Someone who did stop when asked but refused to show their receipt to anyone other than a cop and was subsequently banned from said store. It may sound unfair but ultimately, if you shop there, it is under their terms and conditions.

Several have said there are those making the "race" thing out to be something when it wasnt. Well i believe the OP is doing the same with the "assault". It used to be years ago that actual harm had to take place. Now apparently we're all wimps who feel terror when someone even puts a hand on us.

It is becoming an absolute joke what people want compansation for and we are fast turning into America where you can sue a restaurant after slipping on a spilled drink...........the same drink that you threw at your boyfriend just seconds earlier.

Is that really the kind of place you wish to live? Instead we should be taking the "water off a ducks back" and "no harm done" viewpoint.

Especially when our actions are responsible for the consequences!

Sorry I don't agree.

As the OP had not been witnessed committing a crime by the store detectives (security officers ) then they had no lawful reason with which to apprehend him. This isn't a new law designed by liberal minded vegetarians (no offence intended to LMV) as the Offences against the Person Act was enacted in 1861.

The OP's action may not have been helpful, but then he is under no obligation to he helpful in allowing a battery to take place.

With regards to banning someone with regards to terms and conditions, again you are mistaken, there are no such terms and conditions, rather a general principal that shop keepers can choose to either sell or not to a customer (See Fisher v Bell). Shops are simple 'invitations to treat' that the shop keeper can either accept or deny.

Not going to comment on race as it has nothing to do with the issue of 'manhandling' by security guards.

OP may not be seeking compensation, rather a retraining of staff undertaking these types of duties so that they understand their legal position and the pitfalls they risk by 'taking hold of a customer'. See Collins v Wilcock (1984) QBD, and Morrison, R v (1989) CA.

Security staff have no legal right to physically restrain anyone unless they have witnessed a criminal offence taken place. If they ignore this simple fact then they risk the likelihood that they may act unlawfully and this could well impact on their employment prospects, as well as open themselves up to civil action.

Tesco's will probably dodge that bullet (vicarious liability) by evidencing that appropriate training was provided leaving the individual solely in the firing line (both metaphorically and actually).

unholyangel

Vomityspice wrote: »

Sorry I don't agree.

As the OP had not been witnessed committing a crime by the store detectives (security officers ) then they had no lawful reason with which to apprehend him. This isn't a new law designed by liberal minded vegetarians (no offence intended to LMV) as the Offences against the Person Act was enacted in 1861.

The OP's action may not have been helpful, but then he is under no obligation to he helpful in allowing a battery to take place.

With regards to banning someone with regards to terms and conditions, again you are mistaken, there are no such terms and conditions, rather a general principal that shop keepers can choose to either sell or not to a customer (See Fisher v Bell). Shops are simple 'invitations to treat' that the shop keeper can either accept or deny.

Not going to comment on race as it has nothing to do with the issue of 'manhandling' by security guards.

OP may not be seeking compensation, rather a retraining of staff undertaking these types of duties so that they understand their legal position and the pitfalls they risk by 'taking hold of a customer'. See Collins v Wilcock (1984) QBD, and Morrison, R v (1989) CA.

Security staff have no legal right to physically restrain anyone unless they have witnessed a criminal offence taken place. If they ignore this simple fact then they risk the likelihood that they may act unlawfully and this could well impact on their employment prospects, as well as open themselves up to civil action.

Tesco's will probably dodge that bullet (vicarious liability) by evidencing that appropriate training was provided leaving the individual solely in the firing line (both metaphorically and actually).

Actually it is you who is mistaken sir. At no point did i say the person was banned for not following "terms and conditions". I merely said he was banned then in a whole seperate sentence said when you shop at a store, you are agreeing to do so under their terms and conditions - which is true. If you do not agree with their terms, then you wouldnt shop there.

Neither did i comment on the legality of the secuirty officers "apprehending" him. Merely voiced my opinion that people cry way too much and way too quickly. Someone putting their hands on me isnt - IMO - assault. If they commit actual violence (instead of implied) then yes, personally i would say that is assault. But if i were the OP, i would be looking at how my actions contributed towards the affair instead of trying to dump 100% of the blame on the security officers.

And again, IMO there are FAR too many people trying to put words into other peoples mouths because they interpret things as they see fit rather than how they were intended.

Equaliser123

notjustanyone wrote: »

Why pick the username Tesco Hater? Your beef isn't with Tesco

Would 'I hate Black Security Guards' not have been more apt for you? :cool:

Maybe the abuse team would have man handled you out of here then too and given you the chance for another whinging thread :rotfl:

I don't think that is at all fair. The OP said - factually - the guy was black. Calling someone black when they are isn't racist.

Let's not turn this into a PC race debate.

ianian99

Equaliser123 wrote: »

I don't think that is at all fair. The OP said - factually - the guy was black. Calling someone black when they are isn't racist.

Let's not turn this into a PC race debate.

Exactly. If the op had said, fat , bald , ugly, german, scottish, speccy, or even handicapped no one would have batted an eye lid

Hsl500

Im sorry but I think saying black is no big deal , the man was black?
Things are so much out of hand these days and i know il probably get jumped on here but my son who is 12 an has aspergers got suspended in school as called a little girl brown, as he saw her which is what aspergers is they dont understand like we do.
yet even though diagnosed and under a hospital he got suspended for 3 days ????
so does it really matter black, white ect we are all equal anyway if the man was black then the Op was just discribing him , sorry but i dont see a big deal here
x