ceedoubleu/ BOOTS-RLP 14 year old girl

[Mr lex]

Yes, a full apology has been made by Boots and RLP have been told by them not to take any action.

 

Excellent !! Well done

[MARTIN3030]

Yes its great news-but nothing short of what should have been forthcoming.

Its my contention that Boots would wish it to be known that they dont condone such actionand now that Boots have made that fact be known,all others who have had the same or similar treatment dished out to their children by RLP should follow suit and complain to Boots.

 

If anyone from Boots is reading this-well done,this is a step in the right direction a decision that was right and a decision that you should rightly be applauded for taking.

Unfortunately it has to be said that there will ultimately be further complaints of the same nature arriving to your offices.Its not unreasonable to pre suppose that given the behaviour and conduct of Retail loss Prevention as documented on these forums,there will indeed be more to follow.

[Sugar Plum Fairy]

Sorry to sound negative its great news you've had but have you been assured by RLP that your daughter is no longer on their database that will prevent her gaining employment etc?

[ceedoubleu]

Sorry to sound negative its great news you've had but have you been assured by RLP that your daughter is no longer on their database that will prevent her gaining employment etc?

 

I will be dealing with that in a short while.

[midnightminky]

well done! i am so glad your nightmare is over. it gives the\rest of us hope that justice will prevail:D

[Bookworm]

I will be dealing with that in a short while.

Please will you let us know the response you get? We desperately need more information on how to deal with their tactics and you could provide invaluable insight into that.

 

Well done to you and well done to Boots for doing the right thing.

[MARTIN3030]

Please will you let us know the response you get? We desperately need more information on how to deal with their tactics and you could provide invaluable insight into that.

 

Well done to you and well done to Boots for doing the right thing.

 

Yes Bookie we cant stress enough that they have to be taken on collectively-its people power and sharing results that will not only spur others on but also help us to keep this campaign going forward.

I can say here that I am aware of at least 4 cases in which RLP have ceased further demands since we started this forum.

We should keep up the pressure and can only make inroads if we can see the results.

[flyingdoc]

It then becomes debatable whether the young person has actually been arrested, or just "spoken to " about the offence,then released,.It also calls into question when the the Police themselves say " release them,we are too busy to come and get them", or "Don't call us unless they have stolen over £10 worth " for example.

 

There is no debate here at all. There is no right for a security guard to restrict anyones movement at all unless they are making a citizens arrest - you cannot detain anyone, as a citizen, without - that is false imprisonment.

 

So even if the guard merely stopped her from leaving the store by holding her arm, (you could even add in battery as a civil tort to this) or by physically blocking her way, that is a complete restriction on movement. Either he is making a citizens arrest OR it is false imprisonment. No other options.

[shanty]

There is nothing "merely"about holding someones arm,please read my post again,this is not what I am referring too.

[flyingdoc]

Sorry shanty - I wasnt inferring that the "merely" was your term I meant it as an alternative to taking someone and restricting them in a room.

 

My point was that there is only 1 legal way that a security guard can detain anyone and that is by making a citizens arrest as per s24A of PACE.

 

Anything else is false imprisonment.

 

They can ASK someone to accompany them and the person may volunteer to do so, but this person is then free to leave at any time without restriction.

[funkyparott]

Bear in mind the changes to legislation, namely SOCPA and powers of arrest.

 

Previously, PACE referred to 'arrestable offences'. This has changed, SOCPA concerns 'indictable offences'. (an offence which may be trialed at a Crown court - so includes either way offences such as theft)

 

 

According to s.24A of PACE (as ammended by SOCPA), any person (call him `P') can arrest another person (call him `D', for `defendant') in the following circumstances.

 

(i) P knows that an arrestable offence has (definitely) been committed, and has reasonable grounds to suspect that D committed it, or

(ii) P has reasonable grounds for suspecting that - at this moment - D is committing an arrestable offence

 

However, even if these conditions are met, a further restriction is that

(iii) it is not reasonable practicable for P to summon a constable to perform the arrest, and

(iv) the arrest is necessary to prevent injury to any person, loss or damage to property, or D's running off before a constable can be summoned.

 

 

 

 

Sorry shanty - I wasnt inferring that the "merely" was your term I meant it as an alternative to taking someone and restricting them in a room.

 

My point was that there is only 1 legal way that a security guard can detain anyone and that is by making a citizens arrest as per s24A of PACE.

 

Anything else is false imprisonment.

 

They can ASK someone to accompany them and the person may volunteer to do so, but this person is then free to leave at any time without restriction.

[shanty]

Sorry shanty - I wasnt inferring that the "merely" was your term I meant it as an alternative to taking someone and restricting them in a room.

 

My point was that there is only 1 legal way that a security guard can detain anyone and that is by making a citizens arrest as per s24A of PACE.

 

Anything else is false imprisonment.

 

They can ASK someone to accompany them and the person may volunteer to do so, but this person is then free to leave at any time without restriction.

 

 

Yes,but ,in these situations, security guards DO simply say " I have seen you do x ,will you please accompany me to the office",that IS how most situations go,most of the time the person complies,they could say "no",but for various reasons they don't.And it's perfectly Ok to let them go.

 

So everything else ISN'T false imprisonment.

 

I have seen very few mentions of someone saying they tried to walk out and were stopped,apart from the extreme cases.

 

Scarlet Pimpernel said suspects (we were talking about people who had been seen to steal), should be stopped and then requested to produce their receipt, as they exit, as a solution which was better than calling the Police where the Police didn't want to be called..As though somehow establishing on the shopfloor that they hadn't paid was a good thing.No,it's a terrible idea,not workable,only in text books..and here lies the crux..what works in textbooks doesn't sometimes work in reality.

 

 

Yet,none of you good people disagreed..in fact some agreed,and you are supposed to have your finger on the pulse...jeez..

 

Sorry guys but there is a reason shops choose to let people go,it's because it is the right thing to do.

 

 

Can you see any shop Manager saying "Yes,lets stop taking people to an office,lets deal with the theft in front of everyone else."

There is the Human Rights Act and people have the right to be spoken to in privacy,if they wish,and that scenario is not treating people with respect.

 

Don't stop shoplifters and take them to an office and don't let them go-ever.Dear oh Dear.

 

It is bettter to ask to see their receipt (er..they won't have one, so a ludicrous exercise).

 

Stopping shoplifters and choosing to release them is illegal according to several posters-yet I have pointed out that the Police themselves are requesting this.

 

If that is correct,why don't you write to the Police and tell them that in future,they can be expecting to be tied up in an office all of Saturdays because the CAG wants shops to stop releasing shoplifters (and forget about civil recovery here) and you want the Police to attend every single time.

 

You are suggesting that stores cease forthwith releasing people as they see fit, because it's illegal,you say,yet the Police are happy with this,the Police will NOT be happy with shoplifters being questioned about receipts on the shopfloor,as a new policy.

 

Ps,what Rlp are doing is terrible in some cases,but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Edited April 4, 2009 by shanty

[JonCris]

The point is they aren't ALL shoplifters & yes if accused then insist they call the police & above all refuse to "go to the office"

 

Yes it's a good result for the OP & congrats Boots. Now all we have to do is convince them & others to stop using RLP

[JonCris]

OP are you prepared to make a formal compliant to the ICO?........if so please contact mod Martin3030 when you will be given help preparing your submission.

 

It's important that every victim should complain to the ICO as I refuse to believe the ICO knew when granting RLP their licence the uses it would be put to................... & if they did then the ICO needs to be the subject of compliant