Tesco Security Tag Not Disabled

naedanger

PCMcGarry wrote: »

Why not say that then?

Because it should have been clear from the context.

hollydays

PCMcGarry wrote: »

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

You'd take a photo from the camera , and that's who you are banning?;)

hollydays

naedanger wrote: »

Because it should have been clear from the context.

It was clear

PCMcGarry

hollydays wrote: »

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

So you'll know there's no need to arrest someone to escort them from the premises and there's no need to arrest them if no complaint of theft is made. You'll also know that they don't even have to make it to a Police Station to be de arrested and de arrest is easily justified.

hollydays

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.

Mcgarry lets just remind you that this is the situation that was discussed.
Clearly theft had taken place. What this has to do with licensed premesis I have no idea.

PCMcGarry

hollydays wrote: »

Mcgarry lets just remind you that this is the situation that was discussed.
Clearly theft had taken place. What this has to do with licensed premesis I have no idea.

I see no mention of arrest in that quote or any need to do so to remove them from the shop.

hollydays

PCMcGarry wrote: »

I see no mention of arrest in that quote or any need to do so to remove them from the shop.

Ah , so poppies was saying the police were routinely called in twos, to eject thieves from a shop, which could easily have been done by the shop themselves?
Ah the good old days of wasting police time .

FOREVER21

BykerSands wrote: »

Yet the law only says they need

reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

Yes but theft of a £4 item is not an indictable offence, so would not have been appropriate in this instance.

In 2014 a new law was introduced Low Level Theft and it applies to items under£200, these offences can now only be dealt with at magistrates courts.

This certainly gives lie to a previous post suggesting theft from shops is now taken more seriously.

PCMcGarry

hollydays wrote: »

Ah , so poppies was saying the police were routinely called in twos, to eject thieves from a shop, which could easily have been done by the shop themselves?
Ah the good old days of wasting police time .

It's not uncommon to work in pairs and more so in the 80s. Did you work alone when you were in the police then?

hollydays

FOREVER21 wrote: »

Yes but theft of a £4 item is not an indictable offence, so would not have been appropriate in this instance.

:wall::wall::wall::wall: