Accused of shoplifting

hollydays

"Going through the tills" does not "prove payment" - You can still very well "go through the tills" with a load of stuff in your pockets or just pay for the cheap stuff to make it look like you're paying for everything, when in reality you have 20 quids worth of meat stuffed down your trousers...."


You are getting a bit desperate there.


The op passed through tills in this exact example we are discussing and paid for an item.
As another customer claimed they didn't pay for it , they were lieing.
As they had paid for it.


Is that simple enough.

AJXX

hollydays wrote: »

The op passed through tills in this exact example we are discussing and paid for an item.
As another customer claimed they didn't pay for it , they were lieing.
As they had paid for it.


Is that simple enough.

OK - I still don't see how the store staff asking to check OP's bags is in anyway as bad as you're making out? How do we know that following the member of public raising concerns the store staff didn't check CCTV and witness the OP acting in an odd way around the checkouts? Therefore re-enforcing the member of the public's statement...

hollydays wrote: »

Staff are told never to act on third party information.

hollydays wrote: »

It would be an issue for the staff as they could be disciplined

You still haven't provided any sources for the above? I'm interested to know why staff would be "disciplined" for what seems like reasonable loss prevention?

hollydays

I've yet to meet any member oF staff who's been told
" Its fine to go and accuse someone of theft when you aren't sure of your facts".

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Poppie68

hollydays wrote: »

"Going through the tills" does not "prove payment" - You can still very well "go through the tills" with a load of stuff in your pockets or just pay for the cheap stuff to make it look like you're paying for everything, when in reality you have 20 quids worth of meat stuffed down your trousers...."


You are getting a bit desperate there.


The op passed through tills in this exact example we are discussing and paid for an item.
As another customer claimed they didn't pay for it , they were lieing.
As they had paid for it.


Is that simple enough.

Last year in Asda I witnessed a man stuffing multiple packs of kids underwear into a George carrier, he then picked up a pack of kids socks paid for them then walked towards the front of the store, I informed the girl on the George desk who rang security.... He was stopped in the car park with apparently more freebies than I had witnessed him stash..
Should I not of spoke up, should they have ignored me and let a theif walk off because a member of staff didn't witness it?



Didn't the other customer in this thread witness the items being put in the bag prior to the op getting to the till, so why was the other customer lying?
Surely

hollydays

Poppie68 wrote: »

Last year in Asda I witnessed a man stuffing multiple packs of kids underwear into a George carrier, he then picked up a pack of kids socks paid for them then walked towards the front of the store, I informed the girl on the George desk who rang security.... He was stopped in the car park with apparently more freebies than I had witnessed him stash..
Should I not of spoke up, should they have ignored me and let a theif walk off because a member of staff didn't witness it?



Didn't the other customer in this thread witness the items being put in the bag prior to the op getting to the till, so why was the other customer lying?
Surely

That is not a problem for you though. You did the right thing. You'll never know fully what happened, whether the cameras showed the concealment.

It was the same customer who made both statements. He said he put it in the bag( true) and didn't pay at the till( lie)

AJXX

hollydays wrote: »

That is not a problem for you though. You'll never know fully what happened, whether the cameras showed the concealment.

It was the same customer who made both statements.
As the ops son idn't steal, we can only imagine they got carried away..
Or are you saying the ops son did steal?!

I think what Poppie68 is trying to say is if staff have reasonable belief that someone has stolen something or is attempting to steal something then why shouldn't they act within the law and question said person who has been accused?

In the OP's case it's not like they threw her in a makeshift jail, they simply asked to search her bags which doesn't seem that unreasonable to me?

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

foxtrotoscar_2

The OP's son did something suspicious and someone noticed and the shop staff asked to check which the OP agreed to. End of story.


My local B&Q used to check all purchases at the exit. It's really no big deal. Where does it say the OP was accused of theft by the staff BTW?

hollydays

What poppy did was right-were not talking about that situation-can we stick to the thread you keep trying to change the subject for some reason..

The ops staff didn't have" a reasonable belief".
I notice you haven't quoted the ' source' for that?
That would be because that refers to power of arrest and youd be getting confused if youd posted that..
They simply decided to,take the word of a random person (who partly lied )-which will not impress the managers.
By your reasoning any disgruntled person could tell a shop someone had stolen something to get them stopped-that's clearly ridiculous. That's why shops have limits on what staff should and shouldn't do.its to protect the staff and the customers

It's a VERY serious matter to throw an accusation of theft.

AJXX

hollydays wrote: »

What poppy did was right-were not talking about that situation-can we stick to the thread you keep trying to change the subject for some reason..

I'm not changing the subject - it was the other poster who posted that situation, I was simply referencing it to make my own point.

The ops staff didn't have" a reasonable belief".
I notice you haven't quoted the ' source' for that?

Why would I post a source for that? I've clearly said this is my own opinion. Who's to say what is and what isn't "reasonable belief"? How are we to know that the staff in the OP's case didn't have some sort of further indication (such as CCTV etc....)

That would be because that refers to power of arrest and youd be getting confused if youd posted that..

I'm not "getting confused", I'm well aware these staff have no more power than me or you. They have no powers to arrest (apart from a Citizens Arrest) nor do they have the power to detain you.

The fact is, in OP's case they did neither - they approached and asked to check his/her bags; OP consented to this.

That's why shops have limits on what staff should and shouldn't do.its to protect the staff and the customers

It's a VERY serious matter to throw an accusation of theft

If this is the case why don't you simply post some links to some sources? It seems like you want to put forward a very solid argument for this but you continually fail to backup your points with sources.

hollydays

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/man-accused-shoplifting-store-mistakes-140031269.html

What happens when a member of staff decides to stop someone who " looks" suspicious
Man with a colostomy bag stopped stopped by someone who'd seen nothing.
The member of staff said he'd " reason to believe "..:eek: