Tesco Shoplifting - need help.

JReacher1

hollydays wrote: »

Which part of your post was legally accurate??

The bit where i said the words "legally accurate" that has been edited out of my response to allow the poster to start a straw man argument.

hollydays

as a daughter of a policeman I'm well aware
Edit-don't know why you've edited out your previous post..

hollydays

JReacher1 wrote: »

I'm not saying he's guilty. I am just saying nothing he has posted proves he is 100% innocent. You've taken his statement of events and the fact that the police didn't pursue charges and naively assumed that means he didn't commit a crime which is frankly rather sweet and shows you have a nice human nature.

The reality is though that this case won't go to court so it is up to tesco to decide whether or not he purposely shoplifted and take what action they see fit. They've decided he did and banned him.

Therefore the only facts of the case we know are:

1) the police reviewed the evidence and decided not to press charges
2) tesco reviewed the evidence and decided to ban him from their stores.

Neither of these facts prove either way if the OP committed a theft of not.

You need to understand that you can commit a crime and not be convicted for it

Tesco didn't review the evidence.

JReacher1

hollydays wrote: »

as a daughter of a policeman I'm well aware

Ah this is making sense now. I wondered why you seemed to have so much respect for the police. It seemed strange for someone to be so sure a crime hasn't been committed just because the police decided not to pursue it.

hollydays

JReacher1 wrote: »

Ah this is making sense now. I wondered why you seemed to have so much respect for the police. It seemed strange for someone to be so sure a crime hasn't been committed just because the police decided not to pursue it.

What makes you think I have respect for the police?
Thanks for the cod analysis though

JReacher1

hollydays wrote: »

Tesco didn't review the evidence.

Again making up facts that we don't know are true or not.

It's unlikely (although not impossible) that tesco would ban someone purely on the word of a security guard, they would also have checked the CCTV.

It is very unlikely that only the police would watch the CCTV as the other tesco staff would be in the room at the same time.

whiteswan

Wow I thought we'd finished with this........

Just to clarify a few points..............

It was 3 magazines - they were in my hand NOT rolled up under my arm or concealed anywhere about my person - in my hand in plain sight.

I did not forget they were there.......I knew at all points I had the magazines.............I forgot that I had not paid for them - silly but true. An "honest" mistake if there is such a thing.........although I do concur stock loss is stock loss and should be policed. It was a combination of not feeling too well and being distracted by a work matter. As for inventing an illness just to avoid shoplifting charges .....well I'll leave that one with the people that suggested it - walk a day in my shoes is all I can reply to that.

I may have realised I had not paid for them when I got home - in which case I would have telephoned the store and explained and hopefully made payment over the phone - but in all honesty I can't say when or if I would of realised.

There was a post that said "he can run a business but can't remember to pay for goods" - I am paraphrasing - but that was the suggestion........and yes that is the case...........this is the real world - not everything is black and white.

Now I have had a day or two to take it all in (and talking on here has helped - so thank you for that) these are my thoughts.....

Firstly - HOW STUPID AM I - yes I admit I did leave the store with goods without paying for them - but that wasn't my intent. There were (in my eyes) mitigating circumstances.

Why did the guard state I was "under arrest and HAD to follow him" ? This bit has me confused - at what point did he "arrest" me ?

Can security guards arrest me without reading me my rights ?

If I was "arrested" then why was I not told why - this may seem a silly thing to say as I realised what I had done after a few seconds of being tapped on the shoulder - but surely it should have been clearly stated why the Police were being called and why I was being detained.

Why was I not asked for an explanation of my actions ?

Why was a Manager not called ?

Why was I not asked if I had the money on me to pay for them ?

Why did the security person lie about me concealing the magazines - he even made a gesture to the policeman that I had put them inside my jacket - it was at this point I asked for the cctv footage to be reviewed by the Police Officer.

Why was I sniggered at when I stated that I owned my own business - this was personally annoying to myself and in my eyes not professional at all. In my eyes it was because I was dressed in trackies and a hooded coat - but this is pure assumption on my part, when the Police Officer asked if I had the money on me to pay for the items and I stated that I had the previous nights takings of over £400 on me you could see the look of amazement on the security guys faces.

There was cctv in the room where I was held - can I ask for this footage as its not on the shop floor - will it have audio ?

As you can tell from above I am beginning to feel angered by what happened on Friday.

It was totally avoidable and all of my own doing - but I feel that it was handled very very badly.

Dave

hollydays

JReacher1 wrote: »

Again making up facts that we don't know are true or not.

It's unlikely (although not impossible) that tesco would ban someone purely on the word of a security guard, they would also have checked the CCTV.

It is very unlikely that only the police would watch the CCTV as the other tesco staff would be in the room at the same time.

How can facts not be true...?
Exactly. It's possible tesco have banned someone on the word of a security guard.

whiteswan

JReacher1 wrote: »

Again making up facts that we don't know are true or not.

It's unlikely (although not impossible) that tesco would ban someone purely on the word of a security guard, they would also have checked the CCTV.

It is very unlikely that only the police would watch the CCTV as the other tesco staff would be in the room at the same time.

This is an EXCELLENT point........the Tesco staff did not review the footage until I asked for it to be reviewed after the security guy told the Policeman that I had concealed them.

How do I know this...........well I was being held in the cctv suite - there was a small room where I was placed into - door open at all times and nobody reviewed it until I asked for it to be reviewed as it became clear the security person was not telling the truth.

Dave

JReacher1

hollydays wrote: »

How can facts not be true...?
Exactly. It's possible tesco have banned someone on the word of a security guard.

Now you're backtracking and saying its "possible" not that they "didn't" review the evidence.

I have no problem with that statement. The problem I have is you making up facts that we don't know are true.