Accused of shoplifting

AJXX

hollydays wrote: »

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:

But this isn't a solid source - it's a Yahoo "news" article.

It's a one sided article that has not allowed the shop assistant to explain why they thought the person had stolen the trousers.

After Mr Winter-Jones’ mother complained to the Next store, he was offered £500 compensation for his “public shaming” - although he stressed that “this was never about the money”.

I think this says it all £££, he might have "stressed that this was never about the money" but it looks like he gleefully took it anyway.

It's also got nothing to do with the OP's situation so who's changing the subject now?

Concerned75

“
If only the OP had pointed out that the item was put into the bag by her autistic 18 yr old son, without her knowledge.

This is the key factor and based on the mannerisms of her son, it would have been easier to have just used a basket in the first place. To most shoppers, it would have looked like stealing, combined with the trip back to the shelves and checkout.

AJXX

You've made (now 4 that I count) statements that appear to be fact (or at least worded in such away that you want people to consider them as fact) - so can you provide some sort of reliable source to support these or not?

As I say, you seem to want to put forward a half decent argument to support yourself, but for some reason you're being awkward about supporting said argument with facts.

hollydays

Concerned75 wrote: »

This is the key factor and based on the mannerisms of her son, it would have been easier to have just used a basket in the first place. To most shoppers, it would have looked like stealing, combined with the trip back to the shelves and checkout.

Until the point where the item was legitimately paid for..which most shoppers would have understood wasn't stealing?

cajef

AJXX wrote: »

You've made (now 4 that I count) statements that appear to be fact (or at least worded in such away that you want people to consider them as fact) - so can you provide some sort of reliable source to support these or not?

Quite agree, I would also like confirmation of whether these statements in their posts are just opinions or facts and if they are the latter then some links should be provided to prove they are indeed facts.

Pollycat

Concerned75 wrote: »

This is the key factor and based on the mannerisms of her son, it would have been easier to have just used a basket in the first place. To most shoppers, it would have looked like stealing, combined with the trip back to the shelves and checkout.

Don't say that - it's 'pointless and unhelpful'.

ThumbRemote wrote: »

My suggestion was that saying "Should have used a basket" was pointless and unhelpful. First off, the OP wasn't even asking for advice on how to prevent it happening again. Secondly the OP doesn't say they didn't use a basket or trolley - that's just a guess.

"if the OP had used a basket she almost certainly would have noticed that the meal chosen by her son wasn't in the basket" - but she DID notice it wasn't there, hence they paid for it.

"That suggestion would have avoided the situation developing in the first place." well no it wouldn't, because the customer saw the son put it into the bag when picked off the shelf.

Clearly there are numerous things they could have done to prevent this happening. But pointing out one thing, based on an assumption, that wouldn't actually have prevented it? Good grief sums that up perfectly!

GreatBeyond

hollydays wrote: »

On has to wonder why the staff didn't watch the op and son go through the checkout. If they had of done, they would have seen presumably that the carrier bag appeared empty and a meal was paid for.
If it genuinely was a member of the public who witnessed this , they would have known the item was paid for at the tills.
Lazy overzealous staff, need a rocket.

Who's to say the customer was right, if they even existed.

Obviously someone did see it as it actually happened. Bit harsh on the staff it sounds like they were polite and apologised to the OP after they checked the bag.

The member of the public possibly saw it and said to the security guys on the way out, I doubt they followed the OP through the shop and watched them scan their shopping.

Security had a right to ask to search the bag, the OP could have refused but didn't.

AJXX

GreatBeyond wrote: »

Obviously someone did see it as it actually happened. Bit harsh on the staff it sounds like they were polite and apologised to the OP after they checked the bag.

The member of the public possibly saw it and said to the security guys on the way out, I doubt they followed the OP through the shop and watched them scan their shopping.

Security had a right to ask to search the bag, the OP could have refused but didn't.

Don't be silly, the member of the public was a liar and as for the staff, well they shouldn't have done anything at all because the member of the public was a liar

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

cookie365

I doubt there are many security guards who are paid enough to want to risk getting a criminal conviction for assault or unlawful arrest based on nothing more than the say so of somebody they've never met before.

foxtrotoscar_2

cookie365 wrote: »

I doubt there are many security guards who are paid enough to want to risk getting a criminal conviction for assault or unlawful arrest based on nothing more than the say so of somebody they've never met before.

Nobody was assaulted or arrested.