Tesco Shoplifting - need help.

hollydays

So op . Was a manager called?

whiteswan

hollydays wrote: »

So op . Was a manager called?

To the best of my knowledge a Manager was NOT called - there were people in the area where I was (nobody identified themselves at all during the whole process) but I was NOT aware of any of these people being a Manager - they were wearing shirt, pullover and pants - but not smart suit pants so I would hazard a guess that there was not a manager there.

I did say that I was due more medication around lunch time and that I would struggle without taking those.........I had not planned on being out a long time so did not have any with me - at that point a gentleman was asked to come to the area - he had a dark blue jacket and white shirt on so I suppose he may have been a manager - but this was after waiting 60 minutes for the Police to arrive.

At that point he said that "wasn't their concern" - one of the other males present suggested they could call an ambulance if I got too bad............

There was something else that happened during my time in their holding area - the Security Guard who had "arrested" me was present when I was taken into the back area along with 2 more male persons. They were just stood around chatting about films ;-)

So that's 3 members of staff and myself........I verbally suggested that maybe the guard who had detained me should return to his podium the front of the store as it would be a field day for "real" shoplifters who purposely wanted to defraud the store.........

The other 2 males present agreed this would be a good idea otherwise "management" would wonder why there was no Security at the entrance ! So I suppose that suggests that none of these people were Managers.....

So off he went - back to the front of the store.

Looking back now I find this a bit bizarre.............but as an owner of a Business myself this is what came in to my mind.

Luckily they did not think I was taking the micky by suggesting this ........

Dave

JReacher1

whiteswan wrote: »

No the cctv proved my version of events...........not just my word - although I do believe my word is worth something.

Dave

Although in everyday life your word may be worth something when you've been caught walking out of a shop with goods you haven't paid for then your word means absolutely nothing.

All CCTV proved was you walked around the shop with a magazine and then walked out without paying for it. It didn't prove you had no intent to steal the magazine.

It is very likely the reason why the police didn't progress with it was because for a petty theft like that it wasn't worth it.

On a different subject when similar events like this have happened previously at supermarkets the shoplifter has received a bill from tesco to cover "security costs" under the civil recovery scheme. Did they mention anything about this while you were there? That could be an unwelcome surprise.

whiteswan

JReacher1 wrote: »

Although in everyday life your word may be worth something when you've been caught walking out of a shop with goods you haven't paid for then your word means absolutely nothing.

All CCTV proved was you walked around the shop with a magazine and then walked out without paying for it. It didn't prove you had no intent to steal the magazine.

It is very likely the reason why the police didn't progress with it was because for a petty theft like that it wasn't worth it.

On a different subject when similar events like this have happened previously at supermarkets the shoplifter has received a bill from tesco to cover "security costs" under the civil recovery scheme. Did they mention anything about this while you were there? That could be an unwelcome surprise.

Hi - Yes those words were mentioned - but apparently they are "hollow threats" and are not enforceable.

If I did receive a bill for civil recovery - ie a charge for their security/admin costs etc then I would obviously challenge it.

Or maybe I don't need to..............

http://thejusticegap.com/2014/08/end-road-civil-recovery/

Dave

Gidoloi

geerex wrote: »

What part of "leaving a store with goods for which you have had many opportunities to pay for but didn't" do you have difficulty understanding?
Do you even understand what "framing" means?

You know what? You try it. Go and nick some stuff from any shop of your choice, get collared by the instore security and when the police arrive, make up some story about illness/medication etc and see if you get off. Looks like the worst case scenario is a store ban and withdrawal of loyalty card. No wonder all the druggie crims shoplift to feed their habit. Easy money.

Chill yer beans man. The security guard either needed to use a bit of initiative or...not lie....people make mistakes....there's no need to treat everyone like a criminal just because you're a jobsworth. Good to see the police Officer introduced a bit of common sense into it.

Nick_C

Of course we are only hearing one side of the story here.

I don't see why the security guard would have lied. The CCTV showed the OP walking around the store with ample opportunity to pay, then leaving without doing so. That would be all the evidence they would need to go to court.

For the sake of £5 worth of magazines and a first offence, I doubt that the police would have wanted to pursue the matter whatever the evidence. The police don't have the resources to get involved in petty crime anymore.

Gidoloi

Nick_C wrote: »

Of course we are only hearing one side of the story here.

I don't see why the security guard would have lied. The CCTV showed the OP walking around the store with ample opportunity to pay, then leaving without doing so. That would be all the evidence they would need to go to court.

For the sake of £5 worth of magazines and a first offence, I doubt that the police would have wanted to pursue the matter whatever the evidence. The police don't have the resources to get involved in petty crime anymore.

I think Geerex was the security guard concerned!!!:eek:

whiteswan

Nick_C wrote: »

Of course we are only hearing one side of the story here.

I don't see why the security guard would have lied. The CCTV showed the OP walking around the store with ample opportunity to pay, then leaving without doing so. That would be all the evidence they would need to go to court.

For the sake of £5 worth of magazines and a first offence, I doubt that the police would have wanted to pursue the matter whatever the evidence. The police don't have the resources to get involved in petty crime anymore.

I think this is fair comment - the cost of the magazines involved was £14.

Before viewing the cctv the Police officer did say if I admitted to the theft I could have a "fixed penalty" - I strenuously objected to this and at that point the cctv was viewed.

Dave

missbiggles1

Gidoloi wrote: »

I'm surprised at the unsympathetic response to this persons post. As far as I can see Tesco were guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice and wasting police time. It's one thing dealing with thieves appropriately and/or making genuine mistakes, it's another thing altogether "framing" someone when they're innocent. I would suggest you publicise this and demand an apology from Tesco, they think they are a law unto themselves.

But the OP isn't innocent, he attempted to leave the store with goods he hadn't paid for. Perhaps you missed that bit?

Gidoloi

missbiggles1 wrote: »

But the OP isn't innocent, he attempted to leave the store with goods he hadn't paid for. Perhaps you missed that bit?

Has he been convicted? I must have missed that....