What are security staff actually permitted to do?

[my-spirit-soars-free]

I bought a load of clothes for the kids in a local superstore.

 

I did check that the person on the checkout was removing all the tags, but as I use a wheelchair I can't always see - so I asked her, as I paid, and she confirmed that yes, she had done them all.

 

I went to leave the supermarket, and the alarm went off.

 

The security guy just stuck out his hand, and barked "receipt", then took all my shopping off me, and checked it. I had paid for it, all of it, so he ordered me to go back to the till, to get the tag taken off. I objected, firstly it was a long way back to the till, and secondly it was not my fault, why should I have to queue again - and I was not very polite about being expected to go all the way back up the store with all my bags, but then, neither was he... nothing changed, no way I was getting the staff to inconvenience themselves to take the tag off.

 

OK, back to the till, where it was now a different member of staff, who told me she did not serve me so she could not take the tag off, go to customer service. Back up to the other end of the store, queue up again, customer service check my receipt, again, and all my shopping, again, then took the tag off - no apology, obviously.

 

 

Back to the exit, finally, where I find the security guard asks to see my receipt, again, and my shopping, again. I told him he had just checked them, but he wanted to check again, and then he demanded to see inside my handbag, and asked me to stand up so he could check the chair - at this point I refused.

 

At this point I was getting rather hot under the collar, and told him that he could either call the police, or let me go back to my car.

 

He said "what have you got to hide", but let me go. This time, of course, the buzzer did not go off.

 

I went to my car, chucked my shopping onto the back seat, went round to the boot to load the wheelchair - to find he had followed me to the car, and was checking whether I had anything in the chair.

 

 

Can security staff ask to see the receipt, and go through the shopping (after all, I have paid for it, it is my property)? Is it reasonable to ask the customer, who has not done anything wrong, to queue up again to have the tag removed? Can they ask to see what is in my handbag?

 

If they had called the police, would the police automatically believe the security guard? It did occur to me that he could have easily slipped something else into my bags while he had them all, there is no way that anyone would have seen him within his little booth.

[Sidewinder]

I think a VERY strongly worded letter to the Head Office and copied to the Store Manager complaining about the treatment that you received due to THEIR negligence in not removing the tags, the complete lack of Customer Service and the oppressive attitude of their security staff. He had no right whatsoever to check your bags, or to ask you to prove that you were not hiding goods on your chair.

 

The guard is entitled to ask - politely - to check the goods purchased against the receipt, but it would seem that this one has gone way beyond what was reasonable.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes agree.

Which store was it ? Perhaps some publicity for them on this would not be a bad idea.

[my-spirit-soars-free]

I am not sure publicity would work. Until I started looking at posts on here I assumed, wrongly, that security staff would only pick on people who were actually found to be stealing.

 

People still think that way, most people I have spoken to have said something like "you must have done/said something to make him think...".

 

I am sure that the supermarket concerned would not mind a bit of publicity about how keen their security staff are, as I am pretty sure that any reply they make would imply I was to blame... even if all they say is "we feel it would be unfair to divulge exact details of what this customer did, and in the circumstances we would like to reassure Ms X that we are prepared to forgo further action in this case".

 

I did nothing, of course, other than complain it was a long way down the shop when you have loads of bags, and that I did not want to queue up again - but how does anyone prove that they did nothing wrong?

[Sidewinder]

I did nothing, of course, other than complain it was a long way down the shop when you have loads of bags, and that I did not want to queue up again - but how does anyone prove that they did nothing wrong?

 

You don't have to prove anything, hence why I suggested that this needs to be raised as an issue in the strongest terms with the store concerned. The entire situation appears to have originated from their staff not removing a tag from an item. Fair enough, it happens, but having made the error they should have been more accommodating in putting it right, rather than treating you as a suspect. For security to treat you in the manner that they did, there should have been a reasonable suspicion based on observation of wrongdoing, and I suspect that had the alarm not been activated you would not have been followed out of the store. You should not have been forced to go back to the checkout - in stores that I deal with, Security will identify that a tag was not removed from a purchase, and will then remove it themselves. This is where the store need to correct their behaviour!

[rebel11]

Hi my

 

Here are some tips if needed :- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1242161/How--write-letter-complaint.html

[Anus Horribilis]

I went to leave the supermarket, and the alarm went off.

 

The security guy just stuck out his hand, and barked "receipt", then took all my shopping off me, and checked it. I had paid for it, all of it, so he ordered me to go back to the till, to get the tag taken off. I objected, firstly it was a long way back to the till, and secondly it was not my fault, why should I have to queue again - and I was not very polite about being expected to go all the way back up the store with all my bags, but then, neither was he... nothing changed, no way I was getting the staff to inconvenience themselves to take the tag off.

 

He had no power to stop you and inspect your shopping (although with an alarm sounding it would be reasonable to co-operate). If his attitude was discourteous or you were in a hurry, you have every right to ignore him and go on your way.

[rebel11]

If you were in a wheelchair, he should of taken the tagged item himself to the checkout or called a member of staff. All that was required was a bit of common sense and courtesy.

[my-spirit-soars-free]

I was more than happy to cooperate when the alarm went off - though unsure whether the chair had caused it to go off, or whether they really had left a tag on.

 

He was just plain rude even at that point, not a smile, or a please, nothing.

 

I actually don't feel the wheelchair was much of an issue - any shopper with a lot of bags would struggle to go all the way back up the store again - admittedly, most use a trolley, which I can't, but still, it is not just an issue for wheelchairs. As for queuing again - I did not want to, but I am sitting down, I had no kids with me - in the days when I had three young children it would have felt much more like the end of the world. T

 

I will be sending a complaint to the supermarket - though I suspect I will just get their standard reply, promising to retrain the member of staff concerned... which is impressive, when you don't give them the date of the incident, or the staff members name - still, their customer services are obviously psychic.

[cups]

He has no right to search other than the bags, once he found the offending tag that is it!!! He No Longer Has Any Reasonable Suspicion that an Offence has been Committed, or that you have stolen anything!!!

Make a massive complaint and name and shame them, you are not a thief, you are their Customer, do not let them get away with this!!

Cups

[caledfwlch]

He has no right to search other than the bags, once he found the offending tag that is it!!! He No Longer Has Any Reasonable Suspicion that an Offence has been Committed, or that you have stolen anything!!!

Make a massive complaint and name and shame them, you are not a thief, you are their Customer, do not let them get away with this!!

Cups

 

He has no rights to search your bags without your permission at all.

 

What "Rights" does a Security Guard have? Well, NONE. No more than you or I. All they have is "Citizens Arrest" which you or I may perform, and just like you, or I, in this day and age, attempting to perform a CA can (absolutely rightfully in my opinon) have extremely unpleasant consequences for the person attempting it.

 

An "Arrest" can very easily translate into serious criminal charges such as, Assault, Kidnap, Unlawful Restraint, and other Offences being levied against the person performing the Arrest. You seriously need to know your powers, rights and responsibilities before attempting one, and I suspect many Security Guards do not know them. You had also better be bloody sure an offence as been committed.

 

I also think additional criminal/legal penalties should be levied upon Security Guards, their employers/clients (if hired from 3rd party) where an "Arrest" or other actions prove to be illegal/unlawful - a Security Guard imho should be fully trained, and regularly refreshed on every single aspect of their "powers" and Any Persons Arrest, thus if they make a mistake then punish it. Even PCSO's have to be very careful as their powers are limited.

 

Conditions that apply to making a Citizens Arrest:

 

It appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead.

The arrestor has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest is necessary to prevent one of the following:

The person causing physical injury to himself or others

The person suffering physical injury

The person causing loss of or damage to property

The person absconding before a constable can assume responsibility for him

 

There is a major and extremely important difference between the Powers and Rights of you and I or a Security Guard attempting a Citizens Arrest, and the powers of a Police Constable (in legal terms known as an "Attested Officer") using their Powers of Arrest.

 

We and our Security Guard have to be absolutely sure an Offence has been committed, not only that, but the offence must be "Indictable". Not being a Police Officer or Lawyer, I don't have a good grasp of what a "non indictable" offence would be, but I believe, for example Citizens Arrest could not be used against someone for traffic offences, urinating in the street, possession of Cannabis, and so on. If no indictable offence has been committed, that's where charges against the Arrestor, like Assault and Kidnap raise their ugly Spectres.

 

A Police Officer can Arrest because he has reasonable suspicion, we cannot.

 

Which is why a Security Guard, obeying the law, and who understands their "powers" should only attempt an Arrest if he has witnessed an indictable crime being committed with their own eyes. They and We cannot attempt an Arrest because we are "sure" they have done something, or "have a feeling" or "he/she looks dodgy/looked at me funny"

 

My opposition to Citizens Arrest as above is as much to protect the people attempting to perform one, as much as protecting the public from dangerous Little Hitlers. It's what we have a Police Force for.

[2Grumpy]

He can ask to look at your receipt, check your bags, check your wheel chair, frisk you & check your car.

 

What he can actually do is nothing more than any other member of the public can do - i.e. none of the above. If he believes that a crime has been committed all he can do is ask you to return to the store while they call the police. n.b. the alarm going off is not enough ... They can't imprison you or insist that you go to any particular room.

 

They can make a "citizens arrest" ... at their own risk, but they still can't imprison, threaten or assault you

 

They can also act like a reasonable person, although that certainly hasn't happened here

[caledfwlch]

I have fixed your post for you in red

 

He can ask to look at your receipt (but you are under no legal obligation to show it), check your bags (IF you give them permission to do so), check your wheel chair (IF you give them permission to do so), frisk you (IF you give them permission to do so) & check your car (IF you give them permission to do so)

 

What he can actually do is nothing more than any other member of the public can do - i.e. none of the above. If he believes that a crime has been committed all he can do is ask you to return to the store while they call the police. n.b. the alarm going off is not enough ... They can't imprison you or insist that you go to any particular room.

 

They can make a "citizens arrest" ... at their own risk, but they still can't imprison, threaten or assault you

 

They can also act like a reasonable person, although that certainly hasn't happened here

 

I just wanted to comment on those things, because your post in that section gives the impression that these are powers they hold, they do not, as you say later on, its no different to you or I.

[LaughingGirl]

I have witnessed security guards rugby tackle a man, pin his arms behind his back and then sit on him - one on the guys legs, one on his upper back. The guy on his back was practically choking him with his hooded top. The Police arrived some minutes later and just cuffed him and went to the back of the shop accompanied by the security guards. IMO, regardless of whether he was shoplifting or not, the force used was excessive - he wasn't running and offered no resistance (not that he could if he wanted to).

 

If it is illegal to restrain someone, how come the Police rocked up and just cuffed him? I'm not trying to be the voice of dissent here - just trying to understand how, if it's illegal to do this, the Police where I was that day seemed completely unphased by it all.

[caledfwlch]

I have witnessed security guards rugby tackle a man, pin his arms behind his back and then sit on him - one on the guys legs, one on his upper back. The guy on his back was practically choking him with his hooded top. The Police arrived some minutes later and just cuffed him and went to the back of the shop accompanied by the security guards. IMO, regardless of whether he was shoplifting or not, the force used was excessive - he wasn't running and offered no resistance (not that he could if he wanted to).

 

If it is illegal to restrain someone, how come the Police rocked up and just cuffed him? I'm not trying to be the voice of dissent here - just trying to understand how, if it's illegal to do this, the Police where I was that day seemed completely unphased by it all.

 

Because the Police are corrupt. They turn a blind eye to security guards and bailiff's. Their Lords and Masters wish to protect Revenue Streams. I have known Nightclub Bouncers who have been given police issue (ie illegal for members of the public to even own afaik, never mind carry) Batons/ASP's and the promise of a blind eye if it gets used in anger. You see it all the time on these camera shows following the Police around, Bouncers regularly wade in with the police and commit assault.

 

We aren't the United States, unlike over there, there is no legal mechanism here by which the Police can on the spot "deputise" members of the public to assist in law enforcement, in theory there's no need for such a thing - in the US a Sheriff is often the only cop for 50 miles faced by a backwards, aggressive stone age citizenry even more heavily armed than the Sheriff's, so you can understand why the concept developed. A UK Policeman finding themselves in that position must be incredibly rare. And on those reality shows, its generally at least 5 or 6 officers who get "assisted" by bouncers.

 

Ooh sorry, I mean "Door Staff" they have been rebranded to attempt to divert away from the fact its a profession that attracts a lot of thuggish types. To me though, if you stick a pink bow tie on a lump of faeces, it's still a lump of faeces...

 

Each one of those camera shows will show Officers outright lying about a certain legality 2 or 3 times a show, evidence all on tape, yet none of them gets investigated. If it's a show following the Met you know some guy is going to get the absolute **** kicked out of him by Officers, its incredible, the over the top brutality and violence they use in situations where its absolutely clearly unlawful/unneeded.

 

They protect their little gang, and they protect their friends.

[maxxer]

Wow. What a soap box rant. Got any evidence to back your wild rant up ?

 

Security can use force. Section 3, criminal law act. Same as you, or anyone else while effecting an arrest.

 

And don't forget, what you see is a 'snapshot' in time. You thinking they are being 'heavy handed' may, in fact, be a reaction to a situation that you know nothing about - they guy could of had a knife, gun, blades etc.

 

If there's unlawful violence used - the bloke being restrained will certainly complain.

 

Central london, I had a gentleman kick off, and I had to restrain him, along with 3 others. After the police arrived, an 'outraged' old lady came over, and prompty complained to the police about the poor shoplifter.

 

Without me saying a word, the shoplifter politely told the lady to 'go forth', and that he was wanted for recall to prison, and that he'd quite happily of 'smacked the crp out of him', not to return to prison.

 

 

 

 

Because the Police are corrupt. They turn a blind eye to security guards and bailiff's. Their Lords and Masters wish to protect Revenue Streams. I have known Nightclub Bouncers who have been given police issue (ie illegal for members of the public to even own afaik, never mind carry) Batons/ASP's and the promise of a blind eye if it gets used in anger. You see it all the time on these camera shows following the Police around, Bouncers regularly wade in with the police and commit assault.

 

We aren't the United States, unlike over there, there is no legal mechanism here by which the Police can on the spot "deputise" members of the public to assist in law enforcement, in theory there's no need for such a thing - in the US a Sheriff is often the only cop for 50 miles faced by a backwards, aggressive stone age citizenry even more heavily armed than the Sheriff's, so you can understand why the concept developed. A UK Policeman finding themselves in that position must be incredibly rare. And on those reality shows, its generally at least 5 or 6 officers who get "assisted" by bouncers.

 

Ooh sorry, I mean "Door Staff" they have been rebranded to attempt to divert away from the fact its a profession that attracts a lot of thuggish types. To me though, if you stick a pink bow tie on a lump of faeces, it's still a lump of faeces...

 

Each one of those camera shows will show Officers outright lying about a certain legality 2 or 3 times a show, evidence all on tape, yet none of them gets investigated. If it's a show following the Met you know some guy is going to get the absolute **** kicked out of him by Officers, its incredible, the over the top brutality and violence they use in situations where its absolutely clearly unlawful/unneeded.

 

They protect their little gang, and they protect their friends.

[caledfwlch]

Wow. What a soap box rant. Got any evidence to back your wild rant up ?

 

Security can use force. Section 3, criminal law act. Same as you, or anyone else while effecting an arrest.

 

And don't forget, what you see is a 'snapshot' in time. You thinking they are being 'heavy handed' may, in fact, be a reaction to a situation that you know nothing about - they guy could of had a knife, gun, blades etc.

 

If there's unlawful violence used - the bloke being restrained will certainly complain.

 

Central london, I had a gentleman kick off, and I had to restrain him, along with 3 others. After the police arrived, an 'outraged' old lady came over, and prompty complained to the police about the poor shoplifter.

 

Without me saying a word, the shoplifter politely told the lady to 'go forth', and that he was wanted for recall to prison, and that he'd quite happily of 'smacked the crp out of him', not to return to prison.

 

I mentioned it earlier, but here we go again.

 

The Law is pretty clear on Citizens Arrest.

 

It appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead

 

The arrestor has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest is necessary to prevent one of the following:

The person causing physical injury to himself or others

The person suffering physical injury

The person causing loss of or damage to property

The person absconding before a constable can assume responsibility for him

 

So where, in that pretty clear list will a Security Guard "jumping in" when Attested Constables are attempting to perform an Arrest be covered? Constable's are there on the scene, Constables are performing/attempting to perform an arrest. Therefore at least as I see it, The powers and protections of performing a Citizen's Arrest do not apply.

 

As I said, Attested Constables do NOT have the legal powers and there is absolutely no Legislative Authority, no Act of Parliament that can wilfully be "vaguely" interpreted, to create a grey area by that vague/loose interpretation of legislation by which a Police Constable can "Deputise" "Enlist" or by legal means exhort or force a member of the public thus granting them temporary or emergency powers to act as a Constable for that moment. Thus Security Guards who wade in to a Police Arrest are not acting lawfully. Citizens Arrest is very specifically a mechanism for dealing with indictable criminal acts when an Attested Constable is NOT present. I imagine however there is plenty of leg room, and that the CA Powers still apply if an Attested Constable/s are on the scene and have in some way become incapacitated. If outnumbered Constable/s are for example having the crap beaten out of them then aye, the Public should receive full protection should they (and they should) then wade in to assist/protect the Officer/s

 

I am a firm believer that the Guardians of the Law, and that anybody who is claiming any sort of "Authority" such as a Security Guard should operate within the law. It is not fair, that the best buddies of the Police are able to wade in and use extreme force when Officers are on the scene and are not incapacitated get blanket immunity despite their actions, when people, who have waded in and used force to protect ordinary citizens can, have and will often continue to be prosecuted for doing so. Legally speaking, a SIA Licence does not confer any special status that ordinary citizens have, and it is unfair that there is this disparity.

 

The Law, the Judicial System, and Policing in the UK is being abused in all sorts of ways, in all sorts of areas and fields, and I would rather the people who should know better didn't abuse it, as it currently stands.

 

It is nigh on impossible/rare as hens teeth to have a Bailiff prosecuted for committing criminal acts, no matter what, when they are committed against a Debtor, not because they have special protections, no matter how much they try and twist and interpret legislation, a Bailiff does not have protection, or special status, he has no more authority or right than you or I to nut somebody in the face and smash their nose to bits as soon as they open the door. Yet, the Police refuse to investigate properly, if any sort of action is managed to be forced by the victim, it usually gets "lost" for 6 months with no charges issued, and then of course they are unable to prosecute. As with Security Guards, they see these people as "their own" and abuse and defraud the legal system to protect them. This is wrong.

 

If new legislation is brought in, beefing up the Citizens Arrest powers and protections, that is great, if they want to bring in legislation that empowers SIA registered Security Guards to have additional powers and protections, even so far as giving them a status in certain situations similar to a PCSO then fine - provided it is backed by very tightly controlled and worded legislation strictly lining out and restricting those powers, and by continual training, at least every six months, in the complete legislation, in its use, and in things like PACE, to the point they can (and I think Police Forces could run these courses, issue accreditation to people who pass, and make a very nice profit) then that is cool. I would also want extremely heavy financial penalties levied against these people and their employers when they abuse their power. If they want to use Police like powers, or to be treated all nice and special, then when they do bad, just like a Constable, they need heavier punishment due to being in a position of power.

 

I think that the Citizenry should be given advanced, wide reaching and fair legal protection to defend themselves, friends, family or passers by from violent crime. I think waylaying a Mugger who has just mugged, and in the process the Mugger gains a broken limb or two would be fine, morally speaking by my own compass.

 

I believe special protections need to be introduced for defending ones home from assault. I do not believe however that private enterprises should have absolutely any right to use any sort of violent response to protect private commercial property, other than when a building is being damaged for example.

 

My ideal situation would be maximum protection for life and limb, less for physical property, and less again for private commercial goods. If someone is caught shoving an Ipod in their coat pocket and starts threatening to "hammer" anyone who comes near him, I think the appropriate response should be for security to back away and call the Police. They should not attempt an arrest that could see them, or the criminal hurt, its only a bloody Ipod. If said criminal at any point becomes an actual violent threat to people, personally, then aye, move in and attempt a CA.

 

I don't see why some poor Security Guard, often on min wage should be put at risk of physical harm just for an Ipod or a bottle of lager.

 

The Law is the Law, and the people who enforce the Law should be the very first people to actually uphold it amongst themselves. There are reasons why the Met, a disgusting, broken organisation with far too many vicious, out of control thuggish Stormtroopers on its staff are reviled, hated, even by many normal law abiding people have such a bad reputation, because they live up to it. They use force when its not needed, they beat the **** out of people, they hospitalise them, and even commit Murder, even on television with complete and utter immunity. And they do this, because they know they have immunity. They have committed all sorts of criminal acts on television and gotten away with it, they have murdered at least 2 ordinary people in the last 2 or 3 years, and still no actual prosecutions.

 

I saw one where a guy, stood chatting in his garden with mates was jumped on by 3 officers, head bounced off the floor, and given a good beating with batons for extra effect. What violent act did the guy commit to get such a response? Did he make a move at the officers? did he shout "I have a Knife/Gun"? was he holding a weapon? No. They asked him his name. His answer was "F off, I havent done anything wrong, so I am not telling you" a playground response. All on camera, all very clearly a major overreaction and assault. No officers facing charges of course.

 

The Police need to be reigned in, and until that happens, we can at least reign in the Bouncers and Bailiff's and Security Guards with delusions of grandeur. Oh, and I have a cousin who is a Copper. She spent the last two years with the Met, and pretty much views a huge number of them as I outline above, and she was on their side. She did whatever she could to get transferred out of the Met back to another force. The actual Policing she loved, a lot more crime and violence than the small towns she started out in but its many of the Officers themselves that stunned her, that made her hate the job. And if you heard her talk about the Territorial Support Group, you would think she was some sort of Anarchist David Icke following nutcase with conspiracy theory delusions.

[Bang!]

Sadly with some intellects, if you give them a uniform, they feel anything up to invading Poland to be their legal right.

[LaughingGirl]

Having now read it, I have to agree that section 3 does seem to cover the use of force to prevent crime.

 

The flip side of that is that the force used in the incident I mentioned was not reasonable, and I saw the entire thing from start to finish. When the security team approached the man in question, he offered no resistance whatsoever. The fact that they flattened him didn't prevent anything, in actual fact no crime that I could work out had been committed, since he never left the store.

 

Incidentally, a couple of people did (very politely, I have to add) voice concerns to the arresting officers but were completely ignored.

[Anus Horribilis]

Having now read it, I have to agree that section 3 does seem to cover the use of force to prevent crime.

 

The flip side of that is that the force used in the incident I mentioned was not reasonable, and I saw the entire thing from start to finish. When the security team approached the man in question, he offered no resistance whatsoever. The fact that they flattened him didn't prevent anything, in actual fact no crime that I could work out had been committed, since he never left the store..

 

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.

[LaughingGirl]

Nah, as soon as they approached him he gave up, just raised his arms for them like he expected to be walked away or searched. He wasn't even shouting or screaming, and if someone was using my top to strangle me I don't think I could say the same thing myself - I'd have been going berserk out of fear if nothing else.

 

I doubt very much that he did anything about it. Based on appearance and the fact he was stealing a £7.50 bottle of Basic's vodka, I'm guessing he was an alcoholic.

[maxxer]

Without wanting to de-rail the thread a lot more, do people actually realise its a crime to fail to assist a constable ?.

 

The reason the police usually 'take no notice' of people complaining about use of force, is that the only person who can complain about the force - is the person who was being assaulted.

 

I've always found the line 'do you want to hold him then ?' To be an excellent answer to people who shout 'get off him'.

 

Don't forget, there's not only shoplifters in shops. In my time in london, we stopped purse thieves (imagine me saying to your mum 'sorry, we saw it, but did nothing, just in case we hurt the thieves'), flashers, a guy with a camera looking up kids skirts (I kid you not), drug deals and users in the toilets, staff area thieves (going through lockers).

 

I want to go home and see my wife and little one too at the end of the day. What about my 'human rights', to do my job without fear of needles and knives being poked in me, or catching hep by being bitten. There are an awful lot of people in london who wouldn't hesitate to needle you, if they thought it would allow them to get their next fix. You are the last obstacle.

[my-spirit-soars-free]

The biggest problem, as I see it, with security staff acting "over the top" when their victim has done nothing wrong is that they lose trust, and support - and ultimately, they cannot do their job properly without the support of the majority.

 

The people I have talked to (well, most, those who actually believe that I did not do anything to cause the reaction) are left with the feeling that security staff are not to be trusted - so they are less likely to help them - or even communicate suspicions to them.

 

After my experience I would not go to a member of security and say, as I have in the past, "I think I just saw the person in the red top put xxx in the pram, under the blanket". I will no longer do that, as I do not believe that they will handle the situation correctly if the person is innocent... and ultimately, I cannot be certain.

 

It is the same as the lack of trust in the police - I no longer trust the police, because I have had the experience of being accused of a motoring offence that I had not committed. That means that my old attitude of "tell them what you know, if the person is innocent then it will not harm them" has been replaced by a "I don't know for certain, I could be getting an innocent person convicted".

[2Grumpy]

I have fixed your post for you in red

 

 

 

I just wanted to comment on those things, because your post in that section gives the impression that these are powers they hold, they do not, as you say later on, its no different to you or I.

 

Certainly wasn't intending to confuse. What I was meaning to say was they could ask for anything in their wildest Cagney & Lacey imagination but they have no more rights than you or I, despite what they would like to think.

 

Unfortunately they have an id card, many people defer to people in authority & believe (at the time) that these jokers have some authority

[Anus Horribilis]

Without wanting to de-rail the thread a lot more, do people actually realise its a crime to fail to assist a constable ?.

 

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.