Tesco Shoplifting - need help.

whiteswan

JReacher1 wrote: »

You were always going to get a generic polite response back saying they would investigate.

It will be interesting to see whether they actually remove the ban. The question is of course would you really want to shop in a store where the security guards and some senior members of staff think you're a thief?

There will almost certainly be a photo of you in the security room as a potential shop lifter so they'll focus in on you if they spot you.

I wouldn't give Tesco another penny of my money to be honest.

But I want the "thief" label removed from my name - if possible.

By the way I did not get the feeling it was a "generic" response - although I could be wrong.

Dave

JReacher1

whiteswan wrote: »

I wouldn't give Tesco another penny of my money to be honest.

But I want the "thief" label removed from my name - if possible.

By the way I did not get the feeling it was a "generic" response - although I could be wrong.

Dave

When I say generic I don't mean automated. It would just be a standard polite holding email from someone at tesco while they investigate.

Even if Tesco themselves retract the ban the people who work at that store will still think you're a thief.

whiteswan

JReacher1 wrote: »

When I say generic I don't mean automated. It would just be a standard polite holding email from someone at tesco while they investigate.

Even if Tesco themselves retract the ban the people who work at that store will still think you're a thief.

This is an interesting viewpoint..........it wasn't an email it was a telephone call from the CEO's office.

I take it you mean "there's no smoke without fire" ?

The thing is if nobody ever tried to clear their name when wrongly labelled a thief, liar etc then where would we be ?

Dave

JReacher1

whiteswan wrote: »

This is an interesting viewpoint..........it wasn't an email it was a telephone call from the CEO's office.

I take it you mean "there's no smoke without fire" ?

The thing is if nobody ever tried to clear their name when wrongly labelled a thief, liar etc then where would we be ?

Dave

The security guard and people you interacted in the store all thought you were guilty.

If Tesco head office decide you shouldn't be banned then they will let you off, however the people you have interacted with in store think you're guilty. They're not going to change their mind just because the corporate head office has decided to retract the ban.

you seem to have the unrealistic expectation that if head office lets you off the actual store will think they made a mistake. The reality is they won't think they have done but will just think you've complained and been let off.

hollydays

Op, just to clear up one of your questions.
I'm assuming the security guard was wearing an instantly identifiable uniform , hat , jacket, and he should by law have been wearing an Id tag.

If that's the case , he probably didn't need to identify himself.
I'm not quite sure why he told you he was arresting you. There are two trains of thought on this . One professional view says the guard should have said" I'm arresting you on suspicion of theft of those magazines," and cautioned you, and " please come back inside the shop with me" as he's a person who in the course of his job regularly detains people he should use the proper formal procedures.
My gut feeling here is, he was stopping you on the word of someone else( very dangerous imho and didn't know what the hell he was doing).
It looks like a few people were lolling round the cameras , saw you walk up the stairs, with something in you hand, then decided they discovered the crime of the century.
A managers probably been told "he concealed some things in his jacket and walked out, "and was too overworked and lazy to bother to see if this was true.

He shouldn't , and I assume he didn't , take hold of you as you walk back.
Unless you pulled away or tried to walk away from him.

Another train of thought, that of the clueless, says he just asks you to come in and you go in.

Two points I'd add- as you were openly carrying the magazines it was probably obvious what you were being stopped for so I don't necessarily think he needed to tell you.

Most intriguingly, it's very unusual for the actual person who arrested you not to be present in the room when the facts are related to the police.
Unprofessional and highly irregular.
Whilst I know he had returned to his perch, sorry, camera, he should have returned to the office when the police arrived to recount exactly what happened.
I'd say the right hand didn't know what the left hand were doing.
I mean, it seems , who actually knew who saw what?

The banning is fairly irrelevant op, -at this point-but the issue of the police being called is relevant.

missbiggles1

whiteswan wrote: »

This is an interesting viewpoint..........it wasn't an email it was a telephone call from the CEO's office.

I take it you mean "there's no smoke without fire" ?

The thing is if nobody ever tried to clear their name when wrongly labelled a thief, liar etc then where would we be ?

Dave

Of course, it could mean that they push for a prosecution after examining the matter.

hollydays

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Of course, it could mean that they push for a prosecution after examining the matter.

No . It means they know the brown stuff could hit the fan.
Rather obvious as the police officer decided against a fixed penalty..;)

whiteswan

hollydays wrote: »

Op, just to clear up one of your questions.
I'm assuming the security guard was wearing an instantly identifiable uniform , hat , jacket, and he should by law have been wearing an Id tag.

If that's the case , he probably didn't need to identify himself.
I'm not quite sure why he told you he was arresting you. There are two trains of thought on this . One professional view says the guard should have said" I'm arresting you on suspicion of theft of those magazines," and cautioned you, and " please come back inside the shop with me" as he's a person who in the course of his job regularly detains people he should use the proper formal procedures.
My gut feeling here is, he was stopping you on the word of someone else( very dangerous imho and didn't know what the hell he was doing).
It looks like a few people were lolling round the cameras , saw you walk up the stairs, with something in you hand, then decided they discovered the crime of the century.
A managers probably been told "he concealed some things in his jacket and walked out, "and was too overworked and lazy to bother to see if this was true.

He shouldn't , and I assume he didn't , take hold of you as you walk back.
Unless you pulled away or tried to walk away from him.

Another train of thought, that of the clueless, says he just asks you to come in and you go in.

Two points I'd add- as you were openly carrying the magazines it was probably obvious what you were being stopped for so I don't necessarily think he needed to tell you.

Most intriguingly, it's very unusual for the actual person who arrested you not to be present in the room when the facts are related to the police.
Unprofessional and highly irregular.
Whilst I know he had returned to his perch, sorry, camera, he should have returned to the office when the police arrived to recount exactly what happened.
I'd say the right hand didn't know what the left hand were doing.
I mean, it seems , who actually knew who saw what?

The banning is fairly irrelevant op, -at this point-but the issue of the police being called is relevant.

Hi

Thank you for the reply..........

Nobody had hold of me at all - at no point was I touched.

I thought the security guard was taking me to a till to pay - but it became obvious there was no till point in the part of the store he led me to.

I don't remember seeing an identification badge but he may of had this on - he did not wear a hat.

He had a jumper on and I "think" on the back of his jumper was the name of a security firm - but I do not know. He didn't look like a security guard to me at first glance - just a guy with a jumper on - but I could have missed his id badge.

I think the main issue here is why did they lie ?

Why say I concealed the magazines by placing them inside my jacket - and why say I was just "hanging" around outside the toilets for 10 minutes ?

Both of these facts were easily provable by myself using their cctv footage.

I understand they have "targets" to meet - this in my opinion puts undue pressure on them and may force them into just getting the "numbers" up without even taking "mistakes" into condiseration.

Dave

LABMAN

What targets do they have to meet?

Azari

LABMAN wrote: »

What targets do they have to meet?

Have a guess:

[ ] 2% reduction in global warming
[ ] Reduction of £1 billion in welfare spending
[ ] Catch a certain number of shoplifters


Go on, you know you can do it if you try.