Tesco Security Tag Not Disabled

PCMcGarry

Poppie68 wrote: »

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.

That's what I mean, in the past when caught they just got a bollocking, no crime was ever recorded just as if it had never happened. Now the crime is recorded and an approved method of disposal is used.

hollydays

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?

What in your scenario it was you and it turned out you simply had a sticky tag stuck to the sole of your shoe?? Do you think they should search you ( they can't without your permission, and certainly not a body search) just because the item you'd bought was never tagged in the first place ? All an alarm if or is to.. Alarm..
And in response to your other post there's nothing to stop the shop staff asking you questions .

hollydays

PCMcGarry wrote: »

That's what I mean, in the past when caught they just got a bollocking, no crime was ever recorded just as if it had never happened. Now the crime is recorded and an approved method of disposal is used.

If two police officers marched someone out of a shop , then they had been arrested. They'd then have to be de arrested..not just let out of the back of the police station lol
How would they justify de-arresting someone who had committed theft.

Poppie68

hollydays wrote: »

What in your scenario it was you and it turned out you simply had a sticky tag stuck to the sole of your shoe?? Do you think they should search you ( they can't without your permission, and certainly not a body search) just because the item you'd bought was never tagged in the first place ? All an alarm if or is to.. Alarm..
And in response to your other post there's nothing to stop the shop staff asking you questions .

so all alarms are to be ignored?

PCMcGarry

hollydays wrote: »

If two police officers marched someone out of a shop , then they had been arrested. They'd then have to be de arrested..not just let out of the back of the police station lol
How would they justify de-arresting someone who had committed theft.

Not necessarily, they've been removed from the shop same as when called to assist in removing someone from licenced premises and no arrest is made.

Do you actually know what arrest and de arrest mean?

unholyangel

PCMcGarry wrote: »

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

That depends when you're comparing it to. Go back 100 years or so and you'd find people (even young children) being sentenced to death for stealing a loaf of bread.

Now it seems to be making a nest for itself in civil rather than criminal litigation.

PCMcGarry wrote: »

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

I believe the poster in question was meaning if someone refused to comply with a security guard wanting to escort them back into the shop or search their bags. While the person (whether guilty or innocent) is perfectly within their rights to refuse to cooperate, they have sometimes found themselves banned as a result.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

I believe the poster in question was meaning if someone refused to comply with a security guard wanting to escort them back into the shop or search their bags.

Yes that is what I was meaning.

PCMcGarry

unholyangel wrote: »

I believe the poster in question was meaning if someone refused to comply with a security guard wanting to escort them back into the shop or search their bags. While the person (whether guilty or innocent) is perfectly within their rights to refuse to cooperate, they have sometimes found themselves banned as a result.

It's hard to ban someone who's uncooperative. Who are you banning if they walk off and refuse to give a name?

PCMcGarry

naedanger wrote: »

Yes that is what I was meaning.

Why not say that then?

hollydays

PCMcGarry wrote: »

Not necessarily, they've been removed from the shop same as when called to assist in removing someone from licenced premises and no arrest is made.

Do you actually know what arrest and de arrest mean?

Yes indeed I do, but I sense as always happens with these threads you have a desire to start quoting definitions .

To get back to the ops original point, when the security guard said they didn't have the means to deactivate the tag, he would have meant HE personally didn't ( well he doesn't) , not that the shop didn't .

Presumably he's perfectly capable of tearing off
the security tag that was inside.
If you ring the head office they will confirm this.