If they have a recording of you clearly admitting to theft, they might use this in a civil court to sue you. This is not a criminal process, and does not show on a CRB even if you lose. But, if they do sue they can only claim their reasonable losses. The inflated demands sent out by RLP operators are unlikely to be supported in a court, and there are few if any examples where they have been successful in such a claim. You might end up being ordered to pay them £20 or £50 for the time and inconvenience, it would certainly be less than they would have to spend. Add to this that the claim would be in the small claims court, where their legal fees are not recoverable *and* that you are a juvenile and your capacity to defend a civil case would cause them further problems. Overall I'd say it's very unlikely that you would ever be sued, but nobody can guarantee that.

Nasty tactic, they are clearly hoping that this will increase the psych. pressure upon you.

The employer is entitled to consider whether their employee's conduct raises a workplace concern. For a Police employee, any suggestion of dishonesty is serious. Being innocent in criminal law (beyond reasonable doubt) does not necessarily mean being innocent in civil employment law (balance of probabilities). Exaggerated example - A teacher kills a pedestrian whilst apparently drunk, but their solicitor puts up a clever defence on a technical point about breathalyser calibration and gains acquittal. The employer still has the right, sometimes the duty, to ask if they *probably* committed the crime. That is sufficient for disciplinary action. Teessider, at some point soon your gf may be invited to a meeting with her police managers to discuss. Assume that they have seen all the shop evidence, CCTV etc. She has the right to be accompanied by a colleague, lawyer or union rep - she must not go alone. She only needs to tell them the truth - it was a mental lapse with no dishonest intent, and it is no reflection upon her ability or integrity at work. Very likely she will be reinstated after that, but if there's any suggestion of disciplinary action then you must ensure she has a solicitor. Good luck

Probably better to start a new topic Rebecca, or we will mix you up with pinkprincess. The short answer is that PH cannot remove the goods without your consent, or a court order. But you can't stop them making a fuss about it, and your arrears will need to be cleared eventually. Just keep telling them that you'll pay in a few weeks, and they can have the goods back if they show you a court order. Ignore further calls, do not allow them to enter your home, and do not sign anything without reading it carefully.

Pretty effective system, when well-used. I monitored one for a few days (with consent and an issued handset, for professional reasons). The community tracking of professional thieves & junkies in the town centre was GPS-accurate, so shop staff could be waiting by each door to refuse them entry as they walked down the precinct. Some outlying retailers complained that it just drove all the crime out to the fringes, and there did seem to be some evidence of that.

No, it will not appear on an enhanced CRB.

My advice would be to ignore them. Correspondence or calls, attempts to negotiate, it's all just encouragement to them. They will pin your 'strongly-worded letter' on the office wall and laugh at it. It can also be put before a court as evidence that you admit to some degree of guilt.

No, no, no. Read it again, and look for cases which resemble your own. They have mixed in a few cases of serious breach-of-trust fraud, but that has nothing to do with RLP claims for alleged shoptheft. They do not list any case which they have won in court against a defendant who denied liability. The whole thing is an exercise in bluff. Have you received a summons from a Court, or just some sort of threat about it? Look carefully, upload if you want comment (remove your details first).

[EDIT] a bereaved and vulnerable benefit-dependent person was persuaded to sign up for a vanload of shiny new things which she couldn't conceivably afford to pay for (especially at BH's special "triple-it-and-add-a-bit" prices). Now it's all ended in tears, obviously and predictably.

11.0 on Win 7 32 bit, with an aggressive Adblock Plus plugin (which was successfully stopping all the pop-up formatting, but couldn't catch the text). NoScript has nailed it - I just need to set CAB as an untrusted site, so kudos to ashmk.

Thanks, ashmk - that did the trick. Ironic that I have to treat CAG as untrusted, but forced, intrusive pop-ups are not a good thing.

Sorry, bad form to answer myself but I just tried Chrome and get this instead - not really an improvement....

Thanks seanamarts - it's already active, but it doesn't have any effect on the CAG mouseovers - they appear as semi-transparent overlays, obscuring the text I'm trying to read. the effect - see below - occurs whenever my cursor/pointer passes over an underlined text like "a new thread".

You are asking people to trust in the honesty and integrity of a minimum-wage rentaguard who has just falsely accused them of theft. That's a bit naive, and the suggestion that it may lead to force being used if they don't "comply" is nasty. I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound like a thuggish threat, but the wording you chose was unfortunate. A security guard can perform a citizen's arrest, if they feel they have the grounds and they are prepared to face the consequences of an error. But the making of an arrest gives them no power to take you off to a little back room somewhere, and I agree with JonCris that an innocent shopper should refuse (guilty ones are not my concern). Not all security guards have the high moral ethics of maxxer. Some will bully you, illegally search you, try to coerce confessions from you (eg under RLP), and some might even plant goods on you if they find they've made a mistake. Maybe a big store will have a reliable cctv system, or maybe it will be under the control of the security staff (eg tampering with it to conceal their treatment of the arrested person), or maybe they won't have one at all. If you allow yourself to be taken round the back, you might get what that phrase infers. It is safer to remain where you are, in clear view of witnesses. If the security guards don't like that, ask yourself why they are so keen to get you out of sight and under their sole control? If the guard has clearly stated that he has arrested you, then you must remain until a constable arrives. Stand where you are, or walk to a nearby seat, without making any sudden or aggressive movements. If the shop guard wishes to hold your arm or stand between you and the door, that's fine. While you are waiting, it's a good idea to call a trusted friend or relative and tell them what's happening - this will boost your confidence and flush out the misplaced guilt that arises in such situations. Also, take notes - times, dates, names. The guard has no right to prevent you from using your phone or writing down details. Do not allow the shop guard to interfere with your shopping or clothing, do not allow them to "check your receipt". The moment for checking has passed, they have already accused you of a crime by making their arrest. Do not discuss the matter with them except to say that you are innocent, and you will be taking legal advice. Then wait for the professionals to arrive. I agree with maxxer's final points about the post-police phase. Calm, measured, evidence-based and ruthlessly polite. Start shouting, and you've lost the game at the whistle.

Hi - Certain words and phrases on this board are linked to pop-up information. I would like to de-activate that function, it stalls my browser (Firefox on W7) and interrupts my viewing when I accidentally pass over a live tag. Does anyone know how to achieve this please? Thanks

Agree with you completely. It is morally disgraceful to tout 50" 3D Plasma TV's and other premium goods to people on baseline incomes, and then to triple the price with disguised charges and interest. They are taking advantage of the[EDIT] naivety of their customers.

The first thing you need to do is dump some of that debt. Do you actually need 3 new computers, for example? A basic web & office computer can be purchased for cash at under £200, recycled from a corporate user. Get rid of one of the TV's too. What are your options for ending the agreements? Can you return the goods and walk away? If so, do that asap - reduce your debt load. They will pursue and harass you remorselessly, and there's no point in trying to hang onto shiny toys that you can't afford. Someone here will help you work out the details, but you must end some of these contracts before the arrears start to overwhelm you. Good luck.

Security guards are just ordinary people, paid by their employer. In other stores, especially smaller enterprises, the staff and proprietor have to defend their property. If your site becomes known as an easy target for the local junkies and chavs, you're in a whole world of trouble. My family ran a newsagents shop for many years, I have seen the cash loss impact of targeted predatory shoptheft. The law allows a private person to act in protection of life, limb or property, and more generally to maintain the Queen's Peace. As long as security guards do not fantasise extra powers, as some do of course, and retrain themselves to their common law rights & duties, there is no problem with them.

Under specific and qualified circumstances, yes. But this is a common law duty which hasn't been tested for well over 50 years, and would nowadays probably fall foul of ECHR.

The assumption is that you will meet your costs from the settlement, and the court fees are a part of your costs. You could go back and demand another £70 or whatever, but I would urge you not to. You have an offer which almost meets your initial demand, and will end this lengthy & stressful episode. Grab it, clear the funds and walk away - it's a creditable victory.

Very welcome and reasonable words.

It is possible of course that the security staff knew this gentleman, and knew that he would use violence to escape and/or carried a weapon and/or was a Hep-infected biter (not uncommon with addict shoplifters). If they had knowledge of that kind, then it would be "reasonable in the circumstances" to take him down mob-handed. If there was no such justification, then he would have a good case for civil damages.

And there's the key moment. You should have replied "Are you arresting me?". They have no power to make you co-operate with their security processes - they can either arrest you and call the police, or they can let you go on your way. The aim of the store guard is to create a fictional grey area in between, where you are cowed and obedient. Don't allow them to do that.