Tesco had me arrested !!!

celebrate

stories like and the one in the link above make me even more determined to screw tesco with every little glitch that comes through, they damned well deserve it!

taking someone to court over £5.32? :eek:unbelievable!

geordie_joe

celebrate wrote: »

taking someone to court over £5.32? :eek:unbelievable!

It's not the amount that matters, it's the fact that they believe a crime has been committed against them.

OK, in this case they were wrong, but if you decide not to prosecute people for stealing items less than £X, you are allowing, or even giving people permission to steal from you.

And if that happens they'll just add the cost of the stolen items to the items I buy, and I'll end up paying for the things the thieves have stolen.

EDIT: Not only that, it may have been a fiver that time, but it could have been someone stealing a fivers worth of items every day. Or even 10 times a day, every day!

celebrate

geordie_joe wrote: »

It's not the amount that matters, it's the fact that they believe a crime has been committed against them.

OK, in this case they were wrong, but if you decide not to prosecute people for stealing items less than £X, you are allowing, or even giving people permission to steal from you.

And if that happens they'll just add the cost of the stolen items to the items I buy, and I'll end up paying for the things the thieves have stolen.

EDIT: Not only that, it may have been a fiver that time, but it could have been someone stealing a fivers worth of items every day. Or even 10 times a day, every day!

They'd have to have rubbish security to let that one pass!!!!
I'm not suggesting they let off people stealing 10 times a day!!
My point is for a first time offence which was obviously a mistake as it was thrown out of court why did they not give her an option of a warning or something less costly, obviously they have so much money they aren't aren't going to be bothered about the cost of pursuing a court case. I realise they want the image of being tough but also I think they are giving the exact opposite image of prosecuting for the most ridiculous cases.

geordie_joe

celebrate wrote: »

They'd have to have rubbish security to let that one pass!!!!

It happens all the time, they don't let it pass, they just don't catch it. There's a BIG difference between letting something pass, and not knowing it's going past.

celebrate wrote: »

I'm not suggesting they let off people stealing 10 times a day!!

Neither am I, but when you think someone is stealing from you once, you don't know if it is the first time they have stolen from you or the ninth, or even the thousandth.

celebrate wrote: »

My point is for a first time offence which was obviously a mistake as it was thrown out of court

Well, we don't know it was a first offence, it may have been the ninth offence but they didn't get caught the first eight times.

And as it turned out, it wasn't an offence in the first place as it "was thrown out by the court". Which is a bad phrase on your part, the court didn't throw it out, the court heard all the evidence right to the end and the jury made a decision.

celebrate wrote: »

why did they not give her an option of a warning or something less costly,

I think you'll find, when you read the article for the second time, and actually take notice of what you are reading, she was given the option of a warning, but refused it because she thought it would be admitting she was guilty when she knew she was innocent.

The only real issue here is, nobody else really knew she was innocent until the jury declared her innocent.

celebrate wrote: »

obviously they have so much money they aren't aren't going to be bothered about the cost of pursuing a court case.

And that is the way it should be, nobody should be let off just because of the cost of prosecuting them. If you believe someone has committed a crime against you, they should be prosecuted and given the opportunity to defend themselves. If they are found guilty they should be punished, and be seen to be punished, if they are found not guilty they should leave the court without a blemish on their reputation and it should be made public that they have committed no crime.

celebrate wrote: »

I realise they want the image of being tough but also I think they are giving the exact opposite image of prosecuting for the most ridiculous cases.

It was only ridiculous after the person was found not guilty. Up until that point the legal system thought they had a case to answer, and it made them answer it.

birkee

What I find odd, is that the OP tries to justify an error on their part, but will not allow for an error on someone else's part.

While in no way supporting Tesco, or any other retailer, the staff are not fitted with microchips when they are employed, making them behave badly to customers.

What has to be born in mind, is that whilst the customer had their problem with Tesco, and this is a one off incident, it might have been the 45th incident that the store had dealt with that day, and 39 of them WERE shoplifters.
If you doubt such high figures, I think you would be shocked if you knew the truth, and the brass neck of some people.

When I worked in a shop as a kid, before checkouts, we used to have one couple with three kids come in every Friday when it was busy, and they used to go round the store putting 75% of the items into bags carried by the kids, and the kids would then wait by the door whilst their parents paid for the rest from the wire basket.
Can normal people get their heads round the sort of people who would go into Comet, and walk out carrying a television from the display models?

As a final point, the OP DID leave the store (or attempted to) without paying for the goods..... how were security meant to know what the intention was? To them she was just another shoplifter.
Distraction techniques (misbehaving kids and harried parents) are common shoplifting covers.

I can hear the inane comment now .... "Do I LOOK like a shoplifter".

antrobus

celebrate wrote: »

My point is for a first time offence which was obviously a mistake as it was thrown out of court

There's nothing 'obvious' about the mistake, and the case wasn't 'thrown out of court' it went to trial and the jury rendered their verdict. (And without access to the relevant crimimal records, we don't know whether or not it was a first offence or not.)

celebrate wrote: »

why did they not give her an option of a warning or something less costly,

They did. She was offered the opportunity of a caution at the Magistrates Court but declined the offer.

celebrate wrote: »

... obviously they have so much money they aren't aren't going to be bothered about the cost of pursuing a court case. I realise they want the image of being tough but also I think they are giving the exact opposite image of prosecuting for the most ridiculous cases.

It's not Tesco that pursued the court case, it was the Crown Prosecution Service. It's the CPS who decides whether or not to charge and prosecute suspected shoplifters, and it's their money (or ours really) that was spent, not Tescos.

This sort of thing happens well, probably dozens of times a day at supermarkets up and down the country. The nature of self-service supermarkets is such that people are always 'forgetting' to pay for things that they've managed get past the cashiers desk. Sometimes it's simply a genuine mistake, sometimes it's deliberate attempt to steal the item. It's not Tesco's job to decide which of these it is, it's ours. That's why we have a criminal justice system, and that's why we have juries.

Blobby8_2

Wow, three sensible posts on the trot, must be some sort of a record !

jolfc

Do what my parents did, one parent stay at home with child/ children whilst one goes shopping, much less stressful than trying to keep a screaming child quiet whilst shopping, lol. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
At least op is in a position to do this, I feel for single parents who have to go on their own.

geordie_joe

Anyone notice the OP has only made 4 posts, the OP in this thread, reposted it in another thread, and 2 replies in here.

brand8

im not saying the op is right or wrong but i reg would feed my child while shopping to keep them quite and amused i would also feed them something out of the trolly but i always paid for it when i got to the till i did not think it was wrong but prob with highdsight it was very wrong but i never stole anything