Former TK Maxx Loss Prevention Manager - available for questions !/ reviewed 09.2015

[cerberusalert]

The over riding chorus from people in here seems to be - 'let the police deal with / handle the suspected thieves'. I'm more than happy to do that, as long as the police: arrive within 3 hours of being called, actually deal with the incident rather than trying to get rid of it as soon as possible,

 

So you would be happy to hold someone for three hours?

 

Odd that a PCSO can't even do that.

 

Power to detain: Power to detain a person whom a CSO has reason to believe has committed a relevant offence who fails to comply with a requirement under paragraph 1A(3) to give name and address or who gives an answer which the CSO reasonably suspects to be false or inaccurate for up to 30 minutes for the arrival of a police officer (or to accompany that person to a police station if he or she elects to do so on request). Under paragraph 2(2) (as amended by Schedule 8 to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005) a CSO may only be designated with the power to detain if they have also been designated with the power to require name and address under paragraph 1A of the Police Reform Act

 

Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act 2002. (Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 8 to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.)

http://www.apa.police.uk/public-campaigns/police-stops/pcso-powers

[maxxer]

Thanks for posting a bit of law that only applies to pcsos.

 

There is no restriction on the time it takes to hand over to police. They are called, they respond at their own speed, and within their own timeframe.

 

If they need to go get the person burgling your house first, then go for it, I say. My shoplifter isn't going anywhere.

 

So you would be happy to hold someone for three hours?

 

Odd that a PCSO can't even do that.

 

http://www.apa.police.uk/public-campaigns/police-stops/pcso-powers

 

Hi Former TK Maxx Loss Prevention Manager - available for questions !

Just out of curiosity can you tell me - How long does a Store keep its CCTV footage for from the shop floor? Can HO log in and check out a specific date say 6 or 12 months ago? Thanks

 

Sorry for the delay in responding:

 

When I left tk's, there were a few different systems operating, with different recorders, and so different record times. I'm lead to believe now they are all on one system in the stores, and it records 30 days.

 

If there was an incident (ie you were stopped for theft etc), then the loss prevention will of burnt off 2 copies of all the relevent footage, one for the police, one for the store / rlp.

 

The store copy remained in store unless rlp requested it. They got binned after 6 years.

 

I'm also told that last month, all the cctv posters were changed in the stores, to include the audio wording. Seems like its actually a smaller font from what I've heard, and includes something about them only recording audio in exceptional circumstances.

 

Stores are still recording audio at till points, all the time. Confirmed by my friend who still works in a london store. Naughty tk's, signage says one thing, systems do the other.

[cerberusalert]

Thanks for posting a bit of law that only applies to pcsos.

 

There is no restriction on the time it takes to hand over to police. They are called, they respond at their own speed, and within their own timeframe.

 

If they need to go get the person burgling your house first, then go for it, I say. My shoplifter isn't going anywhere.

 

Can you quote a reputable source for that?

[old bill]

Sorry for the delay in responding:

 

When I left tk's, there were a few different systems operating, with different recorders, and so different record times. I'm lead to believe now they are all on one system in the stores, and it records 30 days.

 

If there was an incident (ie you were stopped for theft etc), then the loss prevention will of burnt off 2 copies of all the relevent footage, one for the police, one for the store / rlp.

 

The store copy remained in store unless rlp requested it. They got binned after 6 years.

 

And a copy for the alleged shoplifter, which they are entitled to see and receive.

 

I'm also told that last month, all the cctv posters were changed in the stores, to include the audio wording. Seems like its actually a smaller font from what I've heard, and includes something about them only recording audio in exceptional circumstances.

 

Stores are still recording audio at till points, all the time. Confirmed by my friend who still works in a london store. Naughty tk's, signage says one thing, systems do the other.

 

If that's the case, any audio recording could be ruled inadmissible by a court. TK aren't just being "naughty", they are showing complete contempt for the law and customers.

[maxxer]

And a copy for the alleged shoplifter, which they are entitled to see and receive.

 

Sorry, thats for the police to disclose to their brief, if and when they want one, not the shop. The shop is there to assist the prosecution, not the defence !.

 

Im very surprised a police officer would even say that.

 

They could be entitled to their footage as a data subject under dpa, but I'm sure the company would be entitled to refuse as its being used in current legal proceedings. (im paraphrasing here, I cant remember the exact bit of the dpa off the top of my head).

 

Can you quote a reputable source for that?

Well, after a fair few years of doing the job, I'm damn sure some smarmy solicitor / human rights activist would of complained in court if there was some legislation.

 

I have had a quick look at the relevant legislation, and I cant see anything about timings at all.

 

I dont doubt anyone who can come up with a time, backed by a legislation link. I dont think it exists. I am happy to be corrected - especially, if it means that shops could use it as a stick to get the police to turn up a bit quicker with !

[cerberusalert]

For your citizen’s arrest to be legally valid, you must, once you have arrested the person, immediately take them to a police station or to a magistrate. In practice, you should make sure you alert a police officer at the earliest opportunity. After you have brought your suspect to the police, you’ll be required to make a full statement. You may also have to go to court to act as a witness, should the case come to trial.

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/government/civil_rights/500393.html

 

Then of course there's the minefield regarding false imprisonment, particularly as it is one tort which can be still heard by jury http://lawiki.org/lawwiki/False_imprisonment

[Anus Horribilis]

They could be entitled to their footage as a data subject under dpa, but I'm sure the company would be entitled to refuse as its being used in current legal proceedings. (im paraphrasing here, I cant remember the exact bit of the dpa off the top of my head).

 

You are mistaken. http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/SUBJECT_ACCESS_REQUESTS_AND_LEGAL_PROCEEDINGS.ashx

[old bill]

And a copy for the alleged shoplifter, which they are entitled to see and receive.

 

Sorry, thats for the police to disclose to their brief, if and when they want one, not the shop. The shop is there to assist the prosecution, not the defence !.

 

Im very surprised a police officer would even say that.

 

They could be entitled to their footage as a data subject under dpa, but I'm sure the company would be entitled to refuse as its being used in current legal proceedings. (im paraphrasing here, I cant remember the exact bit of the dpa off the top of my head).

 

I have to take account of the fact that you have not, in all probability, worked in law enforcement or the legal profession

 

Any person accused of a criminal offence is entitled to see all and any evidence that exists against him or her in order to prepare their defence.

 

 

There are also the Disclosure Requirements of the Criminal Procedures Rules 2011 (as amended). If the police are involved and arrest, then, yes, PACE applies, in which case, the prosecution has to comply with this and CPR 2011 (as amended).

 

 

Under those circumstances, the police would have have to disclose the evidence to the alleged shoplifter's solicitor.

 

However, if the police attend and decide NFA (No Further Action) because security have got it wrong or there is insufficient evidence to prove an offence, then, no, under normal circumstances, the alleged shoplifter would not, as a rule, be entitled to demand a copy of CCTV footage.

 

Nothwithstanding, if, under the circumstances, security get it wrong or the retailer has jumped to the wrong conclusion, the alleged shoplifter can require the retailer to provide a copy of the CCTV footage under the Disclosure Requirements of Civil Procedures Rules 1998 if they then decide to pursue civil proceedings against the retailer for Wrongful Arrest, Unlawful Detention and other other civil torts capable of proof against the retailer.

 

 

The same would apply in the case of attempted civil recovery by the retailer. The Civil Procedures Rules would kick in and force the retailer to disclose any evidence they were relying on, in the same way as the alleged shoplifter would be obliged to disclose any evidence they were relying on.

 

The part of the Data Protection Act 1998 you refer to is Section 35. However, if a retailer was being proceeded against under civil litigation, I doubt very much whether Section 35 would provide much protection.

 

What the retailer would need to worry about is if the alleged shoplifter served a notice under Section 7 of the Act on the retailer. Under that provision, the retailer has no choice but to comply.

 

Retailers may feel they hold all the cards. The reality is that the public are a lot more savvy and better-informed about their rights than they used to be and are not afraid to defend those rights. Retailers who dismiss this do so at their peril.

 

You are mistaken. http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/SUBJECT_ACCESS_REQUESTS_AND_LEGAL_PROCEEDINGS.ashx

 

Thank you for that, AH. I didn't notice what you had posted until I had posted my last post. Brilliant bit of research which bears out what I have said perfectly.

 

:hail:

[Anus Horribilis]

I dont doubt anyone who can come up with a time, backed by a legislation link.

 

There is no specified time limit for a citizen's arrest, only the requirement that the person is expeditiously transferred to police custody. Calling the police and awaiting their arrival would be lawful in my view.

 

However this again raises the question of exactly how an angry and distressed shopper is to be held for several hours. Some stores attempt to search, question and detain suspected shoplifters in back rooms, where mistreatment and planting of evidence is more easily concealed (I'm not saying it happens very often, but it certainly happens).

 

As discussed in previous topics, my firm advice to anyone challenged with a citizen's arrest would be to calmly wait in a public area of the store until police arrive. Refuse any suggestion of 'accompanying' staff to an out-of-sight area, or of being searched, questioned or otherwise interfered with. Resist passively, or if you have the capacity to use force effectively then do so to prevent the staff physically dragging you out of public sight. This would be lawful as a defence against assault.

[cerberusalert]

Calling the police and awaiting their arrival would be lawful in my view.

For three hours as quoted by maxxer? I shouldn't think so, particularly as a civilian employed by the police themselves don't have that authority (see post #83).

[old bill]

There is no specified time limit for a citizen's arrest, only the requirement that the person is expeditiously transferred to police custody. Calling the police and awaiting their arrival would be lawful in my view.

 

However this again raises the question of exactly how an angry and distressed shopper is to be held for several hours. Some stores attempt to search, question and detain suspected shoplifters in back rooms, where mistreatment and planting of evidence is more easily concealed (I'm not saying it happens very often, but it certainly happens).

 

As discussed in previous topics, my firm advice to anyone challenged with a citizen's arrest would be to calmly wait in a public area of the store until police arrive. Refuse any suggestion of 'accompanying' staff to an out-of-sight area, or of being searched, questioned or otherwise interfered with. Resist passively, or if you have the capacity to use force effectively then do so to prevent the staff physically dragging you out of public sight. This would be lawful as a defence against assault.

 

I fully endorse what you say, AH. As regards the time taken for police to transfer an alleged offender to custody, it is usually "as soon as is practicable". Obviously, if a person is likely to harm themselves or others, this will warrant transfer to custody or a Place of Safety, whichever is the more appropriate, as a matter of priority.

 

I have, myself, witnessed retail security snatching bags out of shoppers' hands and rifling through them WITHOUT CONSENT, using the old chestnut "Common Law Right of Search" - I never found such a right when in the police force and have yet to find the existence of such a right since retiring.

 

What a lot of retailers do not seem to either appreciate or realise is that having a third party present does not, in any way, legitimise the actions of security staff conducting illegal searches or assaults on shoppers. It, actually, makes the third party a potential witness to the unlawful/illegal acts and, if criminal, a potential accessory to an offence, as I was forced to tell one Co-operative manager one day, much to the delight of the shopper he and another Co-op employee had, as it turned out, illegally pounced on and searched his bags. The look on his face was a picture and I couldn't help succumbing to my ex-copper's sense of humour by pointing him in the direction of a nearby chemist shop to purchase Loperamide tablets.

 

 

 

Note: Loperamide is the generic name for Imodium. And we all know what Imodium is used for, don't we boys and girls? Lol!

[Anus Horribilis]

For three hours as quoted by maxxer? I shouldn't think so, particularly as a civilian employed by the police themselves don't have that authority (see post #83).

 

Ultimately that would be a matter for a court. But I think that as long as all reasonable steps were taken to expedite transfer, then a lawfully made citizen's arrest would not expire on grounds of time alone. If you caught a burglar in your home and it took the Police several hours to arrive, no English court would say you had acted unreasonably by holding him until then.

[old bill]

Normally, a shout of "Burglary in Progress. Intruder On" would meet with a pretty rapid response by several mobile units. So, the problem of being kept waiting hours for the police to arrive and take away a burglar you have caught in your house, in reality, is not a situation that is going to arise. However, I have to agree with AH that it would be for a court to decide whether it is reasonable and lawful to detain a person for a long period of time before handing them into the custody of the police.

[maxxer]

Croydon was one of the areas I used to work in. 2-3 hours was a regular wait time, with any shoplifter, who wasn't kicking off.

 

Again, I say, there is no time limit I'm aware of. Nobody has pointed to specific legislation which applies to citizens arrests that specifically states a time limit.

 

Some of the 'lovely people' who I used to deal with, would promise me all sorts of things, being sued, court visits, going to have your job etc etc. None of them ever happened. Yous think with the blame culture, and the no win no fee, if any solicitor in their right mind thought there would be money in it, they would jump at a case. It hasn't happened yet.

 

 

 

Normally, a shout of "Burglary in Progress. Intruder On" would meet with a pretty rapid response by several mobile units. So, the problem of being kept waiting hours for the police to arrive and take away a burglar you have caught in your house, in reality, is not a situation that is going to arise. However, I have to agree with AH that it would be for a court to decide whether it is reasonable and lawful to detain a person for a long period of time before handing them into the custody of the police.

[cerberusalert]

I find it incredible that a glorified floor-walker has greater rights of arrest and detention than a PCSO and I would be more than willing to bring an action for the tort of wrongful imprisonment if ever I was in that situation & given that such a case would be heard by jury I would be confident that a half decent brief would win the argument, particularly if no conviction was obtained for shoplifting.

[maxxer]

No, you are right, a bit of a level law was the last time I delved into the legal profession properly !

 

I've learnt a good chunk from your post about cpia etc, however I'm confused as to how this applies to the shop, directly, when a shoplifter is detained and handed over to the police. Are you saying that there should be a third copy burned, and handed over to the shoplifter ?

 

If, and when, the alledged shoplifter decides the arrest was unlawful, the courts / cps agree (by chucking out the case), a solicitor says 'yes, you have a civil case here, go for it', and a court case is set, then I would say yes, they are entitled to a copy (or, as pointed out, suitably redacted / 'fuzzed out faces' under dpa, if and when they apply).

 

In the few years at our stores in lovely london, where we saw 400 shoplifters a year, many many violent ones (almost all who required 'hands on'), and not one complaint made at the time, or afterwards, ever ended up in court action. Perhaps were were better than the company, or perhaps it was because people were guilty, not a leg to stand on, and dispite shouting to the world they were going to personally sue the crap out of us, never ever did.

 

Not every customer is a thief. Only the very small minority. If I get it wrong, I expect to be sued the pants off. After all, I would be the first person to do the same if another store got it wrong.

 

I have to take account of the fact that you have not, in all probability, worked in law enforcement or the legal profession

 

Any person accused of a criminal offence is entitled to see all and any evidence that exists against him or her in order to prepare their defence. There are also the Disclosure Requirements of the Criminal Procedures Rules 2011 (as amended). If the police are involved and arrest, then, yes, PACE applies, in which case, the prosecution has to comply with this and CPR 2011 (as amended). Under those circumstances, the police would have have to disclose the evidence to the alleged shoplifter's solicitor.

 

However, if the police attend and decide NFA (No Further Action) because security have got it wrong or there is insufficient evidence to prove an offence, then, no, under normal circumstances, the alleged shoplifter would not, as a rule, be entitled to demand a copy of CCTV footage.

 

Nothwithstanding, if, under the circumstances, security get it wrong or the retailer has jumped to the wrong conclusion, the alleged shoplifter can require the retailer to provide a copy of the CCTV footage under the Disclosure Requirements of Civil Procedures Rules 1998 if they then decide to pursue civil proceedings against the retailer for Wrongful Arrest, Unlawful Detention and other other civil torts capable of proof against the retailer. The same would apply in the case of attempted civil recovery by the retailer. The Civil Procedures Rules would kick in and force the retailer to disclose any evidence they were relying on, in the same way as the alleged shoplifter would be obliged to disclose any evidence they were relying on.

 

The part of the Data Protection Act 1998 you refer to is Section 35. However, if a retailer was being proceeded against under civil litigation, I doubt very much whether Section 35 would provide much protection.

 

What the retailer would need to worry about is if the alleged shoplifter served a notice under Section 7 of the Act on the retailer. Under that provision, the retailer has no choice but to comply.

 

Retailers may feel they hold all the cards. The reality is that the public are a lot more savvy and better-informed about their rights than they used to be and are not afraid to defend those rights. Retailers who dismiss this do so at their peril.

 

Not a glorified floor walker. A citizen, with exactly the same powers as you.

 

If there's a false arrest made - then please, sue the pants off them !. Let a court hear the details, and them decide.

 

'Sorry mr druggie thief, I know you've just tried to steal cerebus's mums handbag, but I'm only allowed to hold you for 10 mins, so, off you go'.

 

The pcso power of detention isn't for indictable offences, so they could use their citizen power to arrest if needed ( have a google around, some forces don't want them doing this, some encourage it).

 

 

I find it incredible that a glorified floor-walker has greater rights of arrest and detention than a PCSO and I would be more than willing to bring an action for the tort of wrongful imprisonment if ever I was in that situation & given that such a case would be heard by jury I would be confident that a half decent brief would win the argument, particularly if no conviction was obtained for shoplifting.

[old bill]

You have some very strange idea about the law, Maxxer. The legal training police officers do during their initial training is equivalent to degree level. The questions in the Law Exam papers are drawn from Bar Exams and marked by barristers. That is the sort of standard police officers have to meet. There is now talk of a specific degree in Policing that would incorporate Law as a pre-requisite to applying to join the police service.

 

If a retail customer is wrongfully arrested and detained by incompetent retail security and pursue civil proceedings against the retailer, the Civil Procedures Rules will apply. This will mean the retailer has to disclose all and any evidence they have. The retailer cannot refuse in order to prevent or frustrate proceedings. It also means that the retailer could have any evidence they have withheld disallowed if they attempt to produce it in court and runs a very real risk of incurring the wrath of the court, especially if there appears to be or is an intention to mislead the court, which courts take very seriously.

 

Is a wrongfully arrested/detained customer allowed to demand a copy of the CCTV footage? Yes they are. Can the retailer redact faces? No, the retailer cannot do that as it could then be reasonably argued that the retailer had edited it. Any footage that is used for evidential purposes must be raw and unedited footage. This was clearly illustrated in a case I was involved with on another site I post on when it was shown CCTV footage had been edited. The CPS were forced to concede "No Case to Answer" and the alleged complainant is now facing an investigation and possible prosecution for Perverting the Course of Justice, as well as Making A False Report and Wasteful Employment of Police.

 

Having worked in the retail industry before I joined the police force, I am familiar with most of the rip-offs retailers pull on the unsuspecting public. If truth be told, the police view shoplifting as a low priority and it is, quite frankly, a pain in the arse having to deal with shoplifters. The general view taken is that there are matters with far higher priorities and more pressing need to be dealt with than someone who has attempted to walk out of a shop having not paid for something worth 65p retail, as happened in one case and which a Crown Court judge threw out with a scathing attack on the prosecution and the retailer involved. The retail industry is its own worst enemy by cutting back on staff and becoming over-reliant on electronic security equipment that has a history of reliability that is, quite frankly, questionable. There is no better deterrent than a human presence. The retail industry lost the moral high ground on shoplifting long ago with rip-offs of consumers being publicly-exposed by OFT and local Trading Standards Departments. Also, hard-working people are not going to pay Income Tax and other taxes for retailers to go into court with low-value cases and expect to take priority over more serious cases, like assaults, burglaries and sexual offences, which often leave their victims traumatised, often for life. That is tantamount to subsidising the retail industry. That is not what taxation is for. The retail industry needs to get its own house in order first before it starts trying to reclaim the moral high ground and shouting loudly about retail crime, otherwise words like "pot", "kettle" and "black" are going to be levelled at the industry and with some considerable justification.

[unclebulgaria67]

In my local Police force area, the Police recently released the top 10 places for call outs. At no.1 was the local Tesco Extra store, open 24 hours Monday-Saturday. I suspect that Tesco pay a very large amount of business rates for the store, but I wonder whether the cost of the call outs is now more than what Tesco pay towards Policing costs. The Tesco store does have some security staff, but appear to rely mainly on electronic security. Apparently in the evenings/early mornings, they have problems with drunks looking for food/more drink after the pubs have shut.

 

When I studied business admin many years ago, we were told that 75% of all thefts from retail stores were by the staff and they are watched more by security, than the customers.

 

As for the thread, stores are allowed to temporarily detain people using reasonable force, while the Police are called. It is exactly the same, as a private homeowner catching a burglar and sitting on them until the Police arrive.

[old bill]

Hi UB,

 

The figures for shoplifting are more like -

 

Organised Crime Gangs = 90%

Staff (Pilferage) = 9%

Others (Shrinkage) = 1%

 

It is reasonable for a retailer to temporarily detain someone who has committed an indictable offence, but many alleged shoplifting cases are, in fact, over-zealous, ill-disciplined or incompetent behaviour by retail security brought about by malfunctions of electronic point of sale (EPOS) equipment and unreliable security devices, as well as inadequately-trained or bored CCTV operators trying to create some action.

 

However, I have to agree with AH about the detention of persons by retailers and the right of the person detained to use reasonable force against retail security/retail staff where use of such force is justified.

[maxxer]

Is a wrongfully arrested/detained customer allowed to demand a copy of the CCTV footage? Yes they are. Can the retailer redact faces? No, the retailer cannot do that as it could then be reasonably argued that the retailer had edited it. Any footage that is used for evidential purposes must be raw and unedited footage

 

Absolutely, a court is entitled to the unedited footage, as is the defendant or their solicitor. What I am talking about, is when there is NO court case yet, and the person complaining is simply asking for footage. Their request wouldnt be made under any cpr rules, nor any court order, it would be made under DPA, which is the only law they would be able to use to 'demand' their footage. In that case, the faces of other people, who werent the data subject, would be pixellated. It would be a crime for the shop to show other faces etc, as they, as data subjects, have not consented.

 

IF there was any court action (civil or criminal) going, then by all means, unedited, un redacted footage is required.

[old bill]

Absolutely, a court is entitled to the unedited footage, as is the defendant or their solicitor. What I am talking about, is when there is NO court case yet, and the person complaining is simply asking for footage. Their request wouldnt be made under any cpr rules, nor any court order, it would be made under DPA, which is the only law they would be able to use to 'demand' their footage. In that case, the faces of other people, who werent the data subject, would be pixellated. It would be a crime for the shop to show other faces etc, as they, as data subjects, have not consented.

 

IF there was any court action (civil or criminal) going, then by all means, unedited, un redacted footage is required.

 

Pixellating faces on CCTV footage is going to bring up the argument of editing of footage. In my honest opinion, any retailer who pixelates faces on CCTV footage in the belief they are doing so in compliance with the DPA is going to run the risk of being accused of fabrication of evidence, tampering with evidence, etc.. If the person is requesting the footage in order to assess whether civil litigation or informal resolution, e.g. mediation, is appropriate, then my gut-feeling is that the retailer is doing themselves no favours by pixellating faces on the CCTV footage. Ask yourself this question - Would I ask a lawyer, doing commercial law, on a matter of criminal law and/or criminal evidence? Of course you wouldn't. All too often, commercial lawyers tell companies they are doing nothing wrong, only for the company to find out later, when it is too late, that they would have been better consulting a lawyer who was competent in the area of law they required advice on.

[newtothismalarkey]

I'm more than happy to do that, as long as the police: arrive within 3 hours of being called, actually deal with the incident rather than trying to get rid of it as soon as possible, and are active at deterring the offences in the frst place. Security would never have to go 'hands on' if the police reacted quickly to situations.

 

Hi, What if a shopper was held in the holding room for nearly 4 hours and the police didn't show even though they were called, the individual was then told to go home and the police would be in touch (refund fraud). What happens next ? What is the bit about 3 hours ??? This happened to me (no excuse I know but I am otherwise an upstanding member of the community with some recent depression and got myself in a pickle, please don't judge me, it was 4 hours of hell and torturing myself)

[old bill]

This is a rare visit to the CAG forums for me. I am posting because this is an important issue.

 

The retail industry is its own worst enemy. It has abused and misused the law and the police service under the misguided belief it has preferential call on the police and the courts. It has no more preference than anyone else and the industry does need to shed its ingrained corporate arrogance that it should receive preferential consideration.

 

Having been a serving police officer, the retailer in your case should not have detained you for such a prolonged period of time. Four hours would, I suspect, be considered unacceptable by a court. It should have been obvious to the retail security staff that the police were not interested. To be honest, unless high-value items are involved or the suspect is part of an organised shoplifting gang, the police regard shoplifting as a low priority and a pain in the backside. They have more important things to do and offences, like assaults, robberies and sexual offences, take a far higher priority.

 

If a relatively small sum of money was involved and the retailer did not suffer any loss, they would have done better to kick your backside out of the shop and ban you. That would have been a better and more pragmatic course of action to take.

 

The retail industry has cost the taxpayer millions of pounds in police and court time and the attitude the police and courts now take to shoplifting, is, quite frankly, a direct consequence of the retail industry's attitude over the years. The saying "As you sow, so shall you reap" comes to mind.

 

The retail industry needs to get its own house in order and stop ripping off the consumer rather than shout loudly from the rooftops. Another saying "People in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones" comes to mind.

 

I'm more than happy to do that, as long as the police: arrive within 3 hours of being called, actually deal with the incident rather than trying to get rid of it as soon as possible, and are active at deterring the offences in the frst place. Security would never have to go 'hands on' if the police reacted quickly to situations.

 

Hi, What if a shopper was held in the holding room for nearly 4 hours and the police didn't show even though they were called, the individual was then told to go home and the police would be in touch (refund fraud). What happens next ? What is the bit about 3 hours ??? This happened to me (no excuse I know but I am otherwise an upstanding member of the community with some recent depression and got myself in a pickle, please don't judge me, it was 4 hours of hell and torturing myself)

[newtothismalarkey]

So what should I expect to happen to me ? This was Friday evening and I haven't had a call from the police..... thanks.

[old bill]

If a relatively small amount of money was involved or the retailer suffered no loss whatsoever, the police aren't exactly going to bust a gut, are they? It costs the taxpayer at least £2,000 to take someone before a magistrates court and at least £10,000 to take them before a Crown Court. Would any reasonable person tolerate a retailer taking someone to court, at taxpayer's expense, for a piddling amount of money? Of course they wouldn't, especially if the retailer suffered no loss. If the police take no action, you might get a bullying letter from RLP or similar. If you do, come back onto this thread and caggers will help you deal with that. RLP, all too often, sail very close to the wind, legally, and I am just waiting for them to cross the line and take a legal hammering they either take a long time to recover from, if at all.