Aldi now searching empty bags

Pollycat

diystarter7 said:

Hiya

I agree, if someone refuses to cooperate with any shops rules/etc, the shop has a right to allow them to shop there. However, there will be people that do not want their items searched but as you now know, not everyone  "has something to hide." as we are all different

Thanks

I have"nothing to hide" and therefore don't mind my bags being searched 
I've seen no evidence of why people who have "nothing to hide" would refuse to allow their bags to be searched.

Manxman_in_exile

diystarter7 said:

Pollycat said:

binao said:

CRISPIANNE3 said:

We went to a retail park on Saturday to do our usual weekly shop at Aldi.   I arrived at the checkout with three bags for life and were placed on top of the shopping. They were completely flat as they had nothing in that at that point. The checkout operator said he wanted to search the bags because they has a shop lifter last week who tried to get away with £300 worth of shopping before running off.  So because of that incident I assume all shoppers are now treated as shop lifters. 

I have phoned Aldi and they advice this is not their policy and are going to. investigate and promised to call me back. I will update when I here back. 

You where lucky. I have seen peeps attacked by security just for resisting.

Why would you resist a perfectly acceptable request?
Unless you have something to hide, of course.

... there are people who do refuse to be searched based on prices and/or their previous poor experiences...

What on earth does "... refuse to be searched based on prices... " mean?   

powerful_Rogue

diystarter7 said:

Hiya

I agree, if someone refuses to cooperate with any shops rules/etc, the shop has a right to allow them to shop there. However, there will be people that do not want their items searched but as you now know, not everyone  "has something to hide." as we are all different

Thanks

No they don't. A shop can ban anyone from their premises for any* or no reason.

*As long as it's not based on a protected characteristic

Slinky

My friend was barged out of the way by an oik who shoved all the smoked salmon in Aldi in his basket and who then legged it out of the door.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Pollycat said:

EssexHebridean said:

prowla said:

Could gift cards fit in a bag which was folded flat?

Yes, but they won't be activated and a value assigned until they've passed through the checkout these days, so the thief would just be stealing a  blank piece of plastic. 

I'm in the camp here of being astonished that anyone would feel affronted at being asked to show the inside of an empty shopping bag. I can only suggest that they never go to a sporting or music event, where the contents of an actual handbag may well be rifled through as goodness knows how offended they might be by that! 

Or travelling through an airport.
Random checks of hand luggage.
Wand waving around the body.
I've even been asked to go into a cubicle for a more detailed personal search.
Of course, I had nothing to hide so just went along and smiled and said 'thank you' at the end.

An airport is very different, the staff there, along with people like the police, will be trained on how to search people and how not to discriminate against people, (in theory) they will know the law and your rights and (again in theory) there will be a complaints procedure should you feel something isn't handled correctly with redress where that is found to be the case. 

A person working in a supermarket has none of that, they can't search you, detain you or prevent you leaving the store and that applies to the security as well. 

Before "citizen's arrest" pops up, you may detain someone for an indictable offence, low value shoplifting (£200 or less IIRC) is a summary offence, the fact some toerag may walk off with £500 worth of steak doesn't mean it's correct assume everyone will without something more substantial to back that up and declining a request to be searched isn't an excuse to label that action as suspicious either.

Granted the OP mentioned looking in empty bags placed on the belt and who cares but since you brought comparisons of airports into the topic it's a different ball game. 

I understand they are doing a job, they ask, you say sure and everyone goes on their way but really you've done them a favour and that should be a two way street so if you decline they respect that and don't make a big deal out of it, they then have the option to contact the police if they feel there was a genuine concern you was shoplifting and I bet the bar for that happening will be higher than for asking to look in bags. 

Sadly too many people now appear happy to abide by the requests of those who have no actual right to carry them out (beyond asking), I'm a white male in my 30s who isn't classed as vulnerable in way, the odds of anything other than a look through the bags happening is slim, but those who have the lawful right to search you will have, hopefully, been vetted to a higher standard than required for working in the supermarket reducing the chance of someone vulnerable suffering something they shouldn't.  

Pollycat said:

diystarter7 said:

Hiya

I agree, if someone refuses to cooperate with any shops rules/etc, the shop has a right to allow them to shop there. However, there will be people that do not want their items searched but as you now know, not everyone  "has something to hide." as we are all different

Thanks

I have"nothing to hide" and therefore don't mind my bags being searched 
I've seen no evidence of why people who have "nothing to hide" would refuse to allow their bags to be searched.

Maybe the shopper has just come from Ann Summers and doesn't want the random stranger looking in their bags, or maybe they just don't want a random stranger touching their stuff.

The mantra of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is an absolute as it imposes that anything is acceptable and there is no line, the discussion should always be surrounding where the line is drawn between freedom and enforcement.

Should a supermarket owned by a family worth more than $50 billion find other ways of looking after their steak without going through people's bags if they are concerned about it being pinched?

It was mentioned that your food will cost more if shoplifting occurs, I agree it's effectively an overhead and like all business costs is factored into the price of goods but if you took away the shoplifting that doesn't necessarily mean the price will be lower, the other option is the shop makes more profit. 

Browntoa

Original poster should avoid Lidl self service tills then 

They ask " have you scanned all your items ? " Before payment.

They will probably get upset at that as well 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Browntoa said:

Original poster should avoid Lidl self service tills then 

They ask " have you scanned all your items ? " Before payment.

They will probably get upset at that as well 

That's better than Coop who shove a camera in your face and then display it on a screen facing the rest of the tills, very Orwellian. 

Nelliegrace

Considering that the police will not attend even if a thief is stopped, I don’t blame Aldi for letting people know they are watching. The cost of shop theft is added to prices. 

At our town Asda the customers from the local estate won’t pay for a bag, or a taxi if the shopping is heavy. They wheel the smaller trolley away, hundreds of them have gone. The ones with the brake which worked at the perimeter were too expensive to replace. 

Pollycat

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Pollycat said:

EssexHebridean said:

prowla said:

Could gift cards fit in a bag which was folded flat?

Yes, but they won't be activated and a value assigned until they've passed through the checkout these days, so the thief would just be stealing a  blank piece of plastic. 

I'm in the camp here of being astonished that anyone would feel affronted at being asked to show the inside of an empty shopping bag. I can only suggest that they never go to a sporting or music event, where the contents of an actual handbag may well be rifled through as goodness knows how offended they might be by that! 

Or travelling through an airport.
Random checks of hand luggage.
Wand waving around the body.
I've even been asked to go into a cubicle for a more detailed personal search.
Of course, I had nothing to hide so just went along and smiled and said 'thank you' at the end.

An airport is very different, the staff there, along with people like the police, will be trained on how to search people and how not to discriminate against people, (in theory) they will know the law and your rights and (again in theory) there will be a complaints procedure should you feel something isn't handled correctly with redress where that is found to be the case. 

A person working in a supermarket has none of that, they can't search you, detain you or prevent you leaving the store and that applies to the security as well. 

Before "citizen's arrest" pops up, you may detain someone for an indictable offence, low value shoplifting (£200 or less IIRC) is a summary offence, the fact some toerag may walk off with £500 worth of steak doesn't mean it's correct assume everyone will without something more substantial to back that up and declining a request to be searched isn't an excuse to label that action as suspicious either.

Granted the OP mentioned looking in empty bags placed on the belt and who cares but since you brought comparisons of airports into the topic it's a different ball game. 

I understand they are doing a job, they ask, you say sure and everyone goes on their way but really you've done them a favour and that should be a two way street so if you decline they respect that and don't make a big deal out of it, they then have the option to contact the police if they feel there was a genuine concern you was shoplifting and I bet the bar for that happening will be higher than for asking to look in bags. 

Sadly too many people now appear happy to abide by the requests of those who have no actual right to carry them out (beyond asking), I'm a white male in my 30s who isn't classed as vulnerable in way, the odds of anything other than a look through the bags happening is slim, but those who have the lawful right to search you will have, hopefully, been vetted to a higher standard than required for working in the supermarket reducing the chance of someone vulnerable suffering something they shouldn't.  

Pollycat said:

diystarter7 said:

Hiya

I agree, if someone refuses to cooperate with any shops rules/etc, the shop has a right to allow them to shop there. However, there will be people that do not want their items searched but as you now know, not everyone  "has something to hide." as we are all different

Thanks

I have"nothing to hide" and therefore don't mind my bags being searched 
I've seen no evidence of why people who have "nothing to hide" would refuse to allow their bags to be searched.

Maybe the shopper has just come from Ann Summers and doesn't want the random stranger looking in their bags, or maybe they just don't want a random stranger touching their stuff.

The mantra of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is an absolute as it imposes that anything is acceptable and there is no line, the discussion should always be surrounding where the line is drawn between freedom and enforcement.

Should a supermarket owned by a family worth more than $50 billion find other ways of looking after their steak without going through people's bags if they are concerned about it being pinched?

It was mentioned that your food will cost more if shoplifting occurs, I agree it's effectively an overhead and like all business costs is factored into the price of goods but if you took away the shoplifting that doesn't necessarily mean the price will be lower, the other option is the shop makes more profit. 

Thanks for clarifying the difference between a supermarket and an airport. So that's why I couldn't find my check-in desk in Tesco.

""if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" doesn't mean I would not object to being strip searched at the till in Aldi.
It means I don't have anything in my bag that I haven't paid for so it's OK to ask me if you can look in my bag.

Should a supermarket owned by a family worth more than $50 billion find other ways of looking after their steak without going through people's bags if they are concerned about it being pinched?

Maybe they should security tag their steaks. Some supermarkets do.
But the original post was about a specific Aldi store that "has a shop lifter last week who tried to get away with £300 worth of shopping before running off."

It was mentioned that your food will cost more if shoplifting occurs, I agree it's effectively an overhead and like all business costs is factored into the price of goods but if you took away the shoplifting that doesn't necessarily mean the price will be lower, the other option is the shop makes more profit. 

And it doesn't necessarily mean the shop will make more profit rather than reducing the price.
The bottom line is that shoplifting does cost the consumer more.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Pollycat said:

Thanks for clarifying the difference between a supermarket and an airport. So that's why I couldn't find my check-in desk in Tesco.

You made the comparison implying that it isn't rational to be unhappy with bags being looked in at the supermarket because you'd get searched at an airport, the purpose of the above is to highlight that the comparison isn't apt.  

Pollycat said:

And it doesn't necessarily mean the shop will make more profit rather than reducing the price.
The bottom line is that shoplifting does cost the consumer more.

That's the point you can't say it does, it may depending upon who bears the cost or reaps the benefits. 

Supermarkets are highly competitive on price and currently don't want to pass higher prices on to consumers if costs can be cut elsewhere, however typically when costs fall prices are slow to follow and what you save today in these difficult times could be recouped from you 2 fold down the line when market conditions are different. 

There is also a consideration that allowing shoplifting saves money, if a store loses £10,000 worth of goods a year to theft but it's going to cost £20,000 to stop that happening really everyone is is better off with the shoplifting taking place. Then you get drawn into an ethical debate as asking to look in bags is free for the business, but it's not really free for the customer who doesn't have to say yes but many are likely to feel obligated to agree because they can't say no to people, don't want to make a fuss or be the focus of attention if the situation escalates and this leads to a question of competition because your local corner shop wouldn't do this, they need your custom and unfriendly customer policies will hurt them too much, it seems supermarkets are in a position where price is key, value, service, choice, quality, these things are all slowly reducing and ultimately that isn't good for any of us.

Pollycat said:

""if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" doesn't mean I would not object to being strip searched at the till in Aldi.
It means I don't have anything in my bag that I haven't paid for so it's OK to ask me if you can look in my bag.

That is exactly what it means. 

If you would object to the strip search then having nothing to hide means that, in that example, you do indeed have something to fear. 

For you the bar is a strip search, for others it may be having someone poke through their bags, for others it may well just be the situation, the feeling of being accused (even if that wasn't the intention) or having an interaction they don't wish to have with another person.

Talk of shoplifting may lead to talk of society not having the values it once had, perhaps having such large companies encouraging over consumption, paying staff peanuts whilst earning billions and then getting those staff to engage in unfriendly  (from a service perspective) activities such as accosting customers to poke through their bag isn't a great advancement for society either.