Tesco Security Tag Not Disabled

Poppie68

hollydays wrote: »

I go to a shop and buy a jumper. The deactivating device on the till is faulty , and doesn't deactivate the alarm.
I go into another shop, on the way in , the alarms don't sound , but going out they do.
Clearly it's not reasonable to suspect just because an alarm goes off , I've committed theft.

Therefore what's the point of the alarms if they can't at least question the customer and let them walk away without checking their bags etc?

BykerSands

Poppie68 wrote: »

I know an alarm doesn't prove theft as it happens to me on a regular basis, my question was in reply to naedangers post...Where he says if the only evidence they have is the alarm going off then they have to let them walk away.
Can they detain people they suspect of theft, say due to the items the customer shows isn't compatible with having a security device fitted, so is it not reasonable to suspect they have something concealed therefore search them? Or have they have to wait for the police who these days seem to be thin on the ground for these so called minor offences?

Theft a minor offence?

I hardly think so, it's just a shame the police are tied up dealing with Facebook disputes. Adults arguing on the net then reporting it to the police is minor but sadly taking up too much police time.

naedanger

BykerSands wrote: »

Yet the law only says they need

reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

The security guard has no more powers of arrest than any other person, and if they get it wrong they could be guilty of false imprisonment.

Any one making a "citizen's arrest", which is what Somerfield did, has to get it absolutely right. Even making a reasonable mistake about someone's guilt does not provide an excuse if a person is wrongly arrested - or falsely imprisoned, as it is legally known.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2000/sep/02/jobsandmoney

Poppie68

elsien wrote: »

I'm more surprised that they've bothered to tag a £4 iron.

Sometimes the cheapest is the best quality.... We bought a very asda iron approx 15 years ago to take on holidays as it's lightweight and the travel ones are useless and weigh a ton. The Asda one is still going strong after dozens of holidays, been used as a temporary stand in and survived several meetings with the floor.

BykerSands

naedanger wrote: »

The security guard has no more powers of arrest than any other person, and if they get it wrong they could be guilty of false imprisonment.

Any one making a "citizen's arrest", which is what Somerfield did, has to get it absolutely right. Even making a reasonable mistake about someone's guilt does not provide an excuse if a person is wrongly arrested - or falsely imprisoned, as it is legally known.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2000/sep/02/jobsandmoney

The law says reasonable suspicion, I'll stick with Section 24 of PACE rather then you source a newspaper.

Wrongly arrested is an unlawful arrest. It's the subsequent detention that's false imprisonment. You're close but not exactly accurate in what you say.

Poppie68

BykerSands wrote: »

Theft a minor offence?

I hardly think so, it's just a shame the police are tied up dealing with Facebook disputes. Adults arguing on the net then reporting it to the police is minor but sadly taking up too much police time.

I said 'so called minor offences' just my take on it as I really don't think shoplifting is taken as seriously as it used to be...

PCMcGarry

Poppie68 wrote: »

I said 'so called minor offences' just my take on it as I really don't think shoplifting is taken as seriously as it used to be...

I think it's now taken more seriously than it used to be.

daytona0

naedanger wrote: »

If the only evidence the security guard has is that the alarm has gone off then "yes" they would need to let the thief walk away. But they could (and I assume would) ban them from the store.

In fact they need a lot of evidence to detain a thief, and they will be well aware of this fact.

You said "They also had the right to refuse the security guard's request [to present a receipt]."

Now you seem to be implying that the security guard CAN detain people and that they would "need to let the thief walk away" were there insufficient evidence to show that they were thieves.

I suppose this is where the receipt comes in - it clears up the point as to whether the OP is a thief or not.

So all in all, absolutely nothing wrong has been done (and this rant is a bit moot AND it is in the wrong section, as no consumer right question has been posed). Also, I'm not 100% sure what point you are trying to argue.

PCMcGarry

naedanger wrote: »

If the only evidence the security guard has is that the alarm has gone off then "yes" they would need to let the thief walk away. But they could (and I assume would) ban them from the store.

In fact they need a lot of evidence to detain a thief, and they will be well aware of this fact.

Why would then ban them just because the alarm went off?

Poppie68

PCMcGarry wrote: »

I think it's now taken more seriously than it used to be.

Good, I remember working in Woolies in the 80's and shoplifters were caught, marched to the managers office, receive a headmaster type rollicking then be frogmarched out of the store the long way round for extra embarrassment by 2 police officers... Pick and mix was the most popular as people for some reason didn't think it was stealing to pick one pop in in their mouths and have a munch...Our team of covert security shoppers had a field day with them.

These days staff seem to be more reluctant to deal with the issue which imo is down to the litigation mad country we have become.