Tesco Shoplifting - need help.

hollydays

Unfortunately the op wasn't stopped by hypothetical good or bad Betty ..
Full circle..

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

Well done. I do you see what you are doing.

Good.

Anyway, you still haven't answered what training Betty would require

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

Well , you would say that wouldn't you.
But why hadn't you contributed before that?

0/10 for observation skills

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=69269080&postcount=104

Nick_C

hollydays wrote: »

If you haven't seen the theft yourself-don't stop the person on someone else's say so.

So security tags are useless then? If a trained security guard doesn't see a thief hiding a tagged item, they can walk out of the store and ignore the alarm with impunity?

No wonder theft from retailers is at such serious levels.

Sheldon_Cooper

So much stupidity in the last few pages.

There seems to be a little clique trying to browbeat Hollydays by various schoolboy debating techniques including but not limited to: Straw man argument, taking things out of context, and being stupidly literal.

Those involved seem to be hewn from the same stock, and it isn't the tree of knowledge - or even common sense!

I know that some of the more intelligent posters have already said this, but it bears repeating:

There are recommended procedures to follow.

It is not absolutely necessary to follow every procedure to the letter but if they are not followed it lays the store and staff open to possible consequences, such as action for unlawful arrest and failure to gain a prosecution or, if a prosecution goes ahead, a conviction.

To take two the the absurd nit picks:

1) A security guard can, without risk, momentarily stop someone and ask them to return to the store, even if they cannot satisfy the 'constant visual contact' requirement. If the customer returns, all well and good. If they refuse and are forcibly detained and not found to have any stolen property on them, the person involved may well face have a problem with unlawful arrest.

2) Security tags are a completely separate procedure from constant visual contact. If someone sets off an alarm there is prima facie evidence that they are attempting to remove something that they should not. If they do not cooperate and are detained there is little likelihood of a problem with unlawful arrest. (Unless the alarm system in question regularly issues false alarms).


As with most things in life, the necessity of following the procedures is not cast in stone and there are various circumstances in which they may be varied because of a combination of circumstances.

However, presenting false evidence - as the security guard in this instance did will NEVER be a valid variation.

Sheldon_Cooper

Nick_C wrote: »

So security tags are useless then? If a trained security guard doesn't see a thief hiding a tagged item, they can walk out of the store and ignore the alarm with impunity?

No wonder theft from retailers is at such serious levels.

Quite honestly, you are just being deliberately silly, here.

Security tags form a completely different thread of evidence to visual contact.

Do you REALLY need that explained to you?

JReacher1

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

So much stupidity in the last few pages.

There seems to be a little clique trying to browbeat Hollydays by various schoolboy debating techniques including but not limited to: Straw man argument, taking things out of context, and being stupidly literal.

Those involved seem to be hewn from the same stock, and it isn't the tree of knowledge - or even common sense!

I know that some of the more intelligent posters have already said this, but it bears repeating:

There are recommended procedures to follow.

It is not absolutely necessary to follow every procedure to the letter but if they are not followed it lays the store and staff open to possible consequences, such as action for unlawful arrest and failure to gain a prosecution or, if a prosecution goes ahead, a conviction.

To take two the the absurd nit picks:

1) A security guard can, without risk, momentarily stop someone and ask them to return to the store, even if they cannot satisfy the 'constant visual contact' requirement. If the customer returns, all well and good. If they refuse and are forcibly detained and not found to have any stolen property on them, the person involved may well face have a problem with unlawful arrest.

2) Security tags are a completely separate procedure from constant visual contact. If someone sets off an alarm there is prima facie evidence that they are attempting to remove something that they should not. If they do not cooperate and are detained there is little likelihood of a problem with unlawful arrest. (Unless the alarm system in question regularly issues false alarms).


As with most things in life, the necessity of following the procedures is not cast in stone and there are various circumstances in which they may be varied because of a combination of circumstances.

However, presenting false evidence - as the security guard in this instance did will NEVER be a valid variation.

A bit of an exaggeration

The bullying clique you have dreamt up is just two posters arguing with another poster.

Still try and make it sound more than it is to deflect from the weak arguments that the poster was coming out with.

Nick_C

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

Quite honestly, you are just being deliberately silly, here.

Security tags form a completely different thread of evidence to visual contact.

Do you REALLY need that explained to you?

Well yes, because a poster stated that shop staff should only stop a person if they have seen the theft themselves, so I wondered where this left security alarms.

Not being deliberately silly at all, but I do seem to have identified that the statement was either incomplete or incorrect.

Personally, I have set off security alarms quite often when leaving shops. I think a security guard arresting someone simply because an alarm has gone off without anyone witnessing a theft would be on very dodgy ground.

On the other hand, if Betty on the fish counter had seen me sticking a pack of razor blades in my pocket and the security alarm subsequently went off, then it would seem safe.

No need at all to be abusive - I haven't been!

powerful_Rogue

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

So much stupidity in the last few pages.

There seems to be a little clique trying to browbeat Hollydays by various schoolboy debating techniques including but not limited to: Straw man argument, taking things out of context, and being stupidly literal.

Those involved seem to be hewn from the same stock, and it isn't the tree of knowledge - or even common sense!

Oh look, because a few people have disagreed with another poster the insults start flying.

This is a discussion board, if you or anyone else has an issue then contact the moderating team. In the meantime, I resent the accusation that I must agree with Hollydays or be classed as being in a clique/stupid or whatever other accusations you decide to throw around.

Hollydays has come out with many statements over the last few pages, but instead of clarifying these comments, she decides to twist and change things - A prime example about "Betty's" lack of training.

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Good.

Anyway, you still haven't answered what training Betty would require

Fish filleting?