I really can't see how this thread can help or inform anyone when its turned in to people coming out with lazy cliches or stereotypes about the legal profession and snide personal attacks against other posters. Remember a lot of posters that come to CAG are probably legally qualified and provide good free advice and others are very vulnerable and desperately need help. Should we really put people off posting. If someone truly believes theyve been treated badly by a law firm, then they can start a thread on CAG to receive help. That's what its for, consumer help.

If you can't win an argument just be rude. Youve not explained the 39% at all. Are you saying a solicitor gets a 39% uplift on their salary? Anyway you obviously have some sort of hatred for the legal profession hense your rude and insulting attitude. Your ignorant of what solicitors do and answering any more of your ranting posts is pointless. Will be ignoring you from now on, I come on here to help people. Last comment though, your not adding anything to the discusion at all, as Gandymede said, your missing point.

What's this 39% your referring to?

Depends what you mean by unqualified doest it. Most non solicitors have a law degree and some the LPC and many years iof practical experience. Also there's the qualified legal execs. The amount charged depends on experience and qualifications and all staff have a supervising solicitor anyway. Any way £120 per hour isn't a lot if you look at how much some tradesmen charge per hour. Iv just a few quotes for a handyman and the average is £150 per hour. i doubt if they have studied A levels, 3 years to study for a degree, 1- 2 years. to study for the LPC, professional skills course etcetera. Anyway some solicitors now charge fixed fees.

Thanks I never check my rep.

I'm sorry if my funny but true story has been seen by the site team as a barbed comment (barbed comment meaning saying hurtful and rude things). As the op was receiving so much unfair criticism from certain posters I was just trying to lighten the mood. I cannot see what else the op can do, shes received an apology albeit a rather reluctant one. I suppose it would be different if she was actually physically made to go back in the store, hen legal action could be contemplated. One thought, are the security guards directly employed by Asda or contracted. There may be another avenue of complaint.

Don't want to ignore the site teams last post, but I do have a funny story which might lighten things a bit. My hubby and I had spent a day shopping in the city. On going through the train station barriers I had a sudden desperate urge to visit the ladies. Thrust my shopping bags at hubby a rushed toward the loo as quick as I could in high heels. At the same time I noticed I was heading for the gents and stopped, hubby shouted "that's the gents". I was still stood still, my husband had joined me and was laughingly asking me why I was going to the gents, when a security guard stood between the gents and ladies, blew a whistle about 4 times and bellowed rather loudly into her Walky talky "major incident, major incident, all guards down to .............. as a matter of urgency". I immediately crouched on the floor thinking the station was in the middle of a terrorist attack. The major incident, me nearly entering the gents.

The law trumps what big businesses think they can and cannot do. It is actually common sense to take heed of the law and good customer relations. Your just going round in circles and it isn't helpful. Your free to act as you like, if your happy to be shouted at so be it, you can't impose your own rules on other people. The op acted as she saw fit, that is not only her perogative but perfectly legal. End of.

To go back to your original complaint, have you taken it over the head of the store manager, perhaps to head office and inviting them to look at CCTV so they can see how the security guard acted?

CAG is here to help people when things go wrong. Providing people with advice is not gullible or an indication that posters dont live in the real world just because they don't agree with you. Most posters base their advice on their experience and knowledge and they should be respected for that. Just look at all the good CAG has done and all the sucessful outcomes of the advice given.

What we have to remember is that op has done nothing wrong. She had every right to walk away when faced with a very rude and unprofessional security guard, regardless of what other people think about how she should have reacted. I am aware of the problem with retail theft and how this can push prices up. However Security Staff have no more authority than a person in the street and it is in their own interest to act lawfully and professionally. Whilst people give rogue security guards more authority then they have and just give in to their demands like sheep, the industry will not raise its game.

Yes you right, I forgot about CCTV. This would show the security guard acting inappropriately and the op quite reasonably walking away. This would blow tony3x arguments out of the water.

Yep, tony3x following his little scenerio could find himself facing assault charges, charges for false imprisonment/kidnapping, charges under the Public Order Act. Also he could lose his job and be sued in the civil court for damages AND his employer would be vicariously liable for his actions. Perhaps it just as well for all concerned that he isn't a security guard. QUOTE=p3t3r;4754019]Similar circumstance happened to me, security guards felt they had the right to grab my arms and frogmarch me back into the store. Resulted in police being called by myself and the store. Police said I could make complaint of assault. In the end, I settled for an apology and £150 of gift vouchers. This was a long time ago, over 10 years ago. I see that problem still exists today, especially with people like yourself who believe they can detain someone because "I was sure that I see them put something in their bag" - that would be illegal, false imprisonment maybe... since you decide to detain them based upon actually no reason to detain them other than your own belief of 'something'. Whilst security guards have an official uniform, they have no more powers than that of a customer. Certainly they can not go around assaulting people for no reason, whether that be physical or verbal assault.

Now you are being funny. So your admitting on a forum that you would lie to detain someone. Oh dear me. So in this case, all you know is the bleepers have gone off so you detain the op and lie to the police. The police search the bag and see the op is innocent and the op states that you shouted at her and when she refused your insistance to come back into the shop you put your hands on her and detained her. Guess what would happen now. Perhaps you should scroll through the relevant Acts and find out.

I dont have to scroll through various acts, I'm legally qualified and have working legal experience. Yes the Keene case was ridiculous, I mentioned it to highlight that the idea that shouting at someone cannot be harassment had no legal basis. As to your assumptions about never being faced with real situations requiring a backbone, you have no idea about my life so cannot comment. Try working in A and E and being faced with a violent drunk or some one high on drugs or being faced with an aggressive father during a contact case. Real world indeed. [/sVIEW]

Its OK, your not funny. I didn't say the guard was accusing the op of theft. It isn't a load of tosh, the guard had no authority. Unlike the guard who appears to have been asleep during his training, I wasn't asleep when studying law beyond 1st degree level.

Totally agree with you

They didn't forget the sex of the guard, they just couldn't tell. Not unusual really. As to the 1955 case, it is still relevant. Also look at s4a public order act 1984 and s154 criminal justice and public order act 1994. In other words there are a whole raft of laws that cover this sort of situation. Someone recently was arrested for giving someone a hard stare.

[ Good one QUOTE=hightail;4753923]How do you distinguish between innocent and guilty shoppers? Well you see the guilty ones stealing and continue the proper observations. Then you call the police and go through proper process. Other than that they're innocent. There are other things you can do of course such as arranging your shop so it isn't easy to steal. I have no time for thieves but I have been the subject of bored employees targeting elderly customers on leaving a supermarket and searching their bags - for sport. Or maybe they'd had a spate of thefts by pensioners so they were profiling, maybe that's how they chose to distinguish the 'guilty'.

Personally if i had the time, what I would have said something like "who on earth do you think your talking to" and demanded the managers presence. If the manager turned out to be a tool i would refuse to allow my bag searched and told them to call the police if they wanted to accuse me of anything. Seems a little extreme, but security guards are trained therefore should know they have no legal authority and act accordingly. Storemanagers , especially in places like Asda, who are losing customers, should exercise good customer service. Ad to revoking my right of entry, bring it on. Loads other supermarkets. All those comments by tony3x about standing up for himself are illogical. Doing what your told by someone shouting on you who has no authority is the opposite of sticking up for yourself. And BTW, when I have been stopped when bleepers have gone off, I have allowed my bag to be searched but the guards in question have always been polite.

I liked the "trivial pi cases" and suing hospitals" comments. So what should we have, medical negligence going unanswered, people injured, losing wages, suffering health problems and the victim just takes it on the chin? Let's face it, the government is just trying to limit the liability of their chums in the insurance industry etcetera. Won't effect the rich because they will still afford to claim.

You can make silly jokes all you want, doesn't alter the truth. My knowledge is current. Of course some solicitors are on very high pay but not all. Anyway, just because your on a high salary doesn't mean you should give out free services. My plumber, before he started to slow down, was earning over £50,000 a year, should he have offered his services free to certain members of society?

Makes me laugh, wealthy lawyers indeed. My old firm paid newly qualified lawyers £18,000 even when that lawyer had spent many years before their training contract actually doing the job. Lawyers aren't voluntary workers, they have bills like everyone else. Access to justice has been eroded by the government and nobody else and now they want to pass the buck.

I stopped tolerating being shouted at when I left school. Its unacceptable regardless of who's doing the shouting and yes it can not only be seen as bullying but also harassment, if you want to tolerate this type of behaviour than that's your perogative , you cannot expect other people to do the same,

Completely agree with you.