Scared to death... Caught shoplifting in supermarket

[Scaredtodeath1971]

Why on Earth did you allow them to paw through your property in this way? Their only right is to arrest you until the Police arrive, and nothing more. If they hadn't called the police then you were being unlawfully detained, and any search they undertook without your consent was an assault.

 

How would I have known?

This never happened to me before... And will never happen to me again.

 

It's been a week and so far I have not received any ackward call from HR/manager.... I have not received the RLP letter either.

 

So, you mean that I could sue them if they contact my employer when I have not even been reported to the Police??

 

Not that I am planning to do so, just out of curiosity...

[Faddy150]

Yes you could. RLP and the store in question have NO right to tell your employer what's happened. I'm talking of course on a formal basis... There's nothing to stop people talking amongst themselves if the security guards work in other nearby stores. I believe that's also not "the done thing" but people do talk. Is your work anything to do with the supermarket in question? Do they share security guards or in the same shopping precinct? If not, I wouldn't worry X

 

The first RLP letter took over 5 weeks to land on my doorstep.

[Scaredtodeath1971]

Yes you could. RLP and the store in question have NO right to tell your employer what's happened. I'm talking of course on a formal basis... There's nothing to stop people talking amongst themselves if the security guards work in other nearby stores. I believe that's also not "the done thing" but people do talk. Is your work anything to do with the supermarket in question? Do they share security guards or in the same shopping precinct? If not, I wouldn't worry X

 

The first RLP letter took over 5 weeks to land on my doorstep.

 

No, my company and the supermarket are not related but are very close geographically..... I suppose the security personnel may know each other, I do not know...

[Faddy150]

I wouldn't worry about it then. Honestly. Even if they did find out they couldn't do anything because you've not been convicted of anything, no police were involved.

 

No need to worry, you'll be fine x

[Scaredtodeath1971]

I wouldn't worry about it then. Honestly. Even if they did find out they couldn't do anything because you've not been convicted of anything, no police were involved.

 

No need to worry, you'll be fine x

 

I hope so. I never left so ashamed in my life...

[Faddy150]

I know the feeling, trust me. Over 12 months down the line and I still feel sick to my stomach... My advice would be to get on with your life, put it down to "experience". Don't make yourself ill over it because its NOT worth it. Head up, move on.

 

Should listen to my own advice more!

[Scaredtodeath1971]

I know the feeling, trust me. Over 12 months down the line and I still feel sick to my stomach... My advice would be to get on with your life, put it down to "experience". Don't make yourself ill over it because its NOT worth it. Head up, move on.

 

Should listen to my own advice more!

 

Thanks!

[ericsbrother]

It is a breach of law for RLP to contact the OP's employers and they know it. It could also be construed as threatening behaviour to even say that they would do such a thing as it passes the requirement of "causing distress or fear" as there is no set threshold for what causes such in people, just what they say frightens them.

If I employed a person who suffered such an action I would be pursuing RLP and the store myself for breach of the DPA. My relationship with my employees has nothing to do with them. Conspiracy to pevert the course of justice carries a maximum penalty of life inprisonment and perhaps someone should remind these people taking the law into their own hands could one day be looked at in a different light by the police if they receive a complaint from someone with enough interest to press the matter.

[BazzaS]

It is a breach of law for RLP to contact the OP's employers and they know it. It could also be construed as threatening behaviour to even say that they would do such a thing as it passes the requirement of "causing distress or fear" as there is no set threshold for what causes such in people, just what they say frightens them.

If I employed a person who suffered such an action I would be pursuing RLP and the store myself for breach of the DPA. My relationship with my employees has nothing to do with them. Conspiracy to pevert the course of justice carries a maximum penalty of life inprisonment and perhaps someone should remind these people taking the law into their own hands could one day be looked at in a different light by the police if they receive a complaint from someone with enough interest to press the matter.

 

Who has conspired to pervert the course of justice?

 

One might as well say "conviction for murder caries a life sentence" : it is true, but not actually relevant!

[eyeinthesky]

It is a breach of law for RLP to contact the OP's employers and they know it. It could also be construed as threatening behaviour to even say that they would do such a thing as it passes the requirement of "causing distress or fear" as there is no set threshold for what causes such in people, just what they say frightens them.

If I employed a person who suffered such an action I would be pursuing RLP and the store myself for breach of the DPA. My relationship with my employees has nothing to do with them. Conspiracy to pevert the course of justice carries a maximum penalty of life inprisonment and perhaps someone should remind these people taking the law into their own hands could one day be looked at in a different light by the police if they receive a complaint from someone with enough interest to press the matter.

 

It would not be a breach of data protection laws, as they specifically allow data to be passed for purposes of prevention and detection of crime. It would not be RLP contacting the op's employer, it would be the store security or other staff, and there is nothing, realistically, that can be done about it. Think of all the shopwatch schemes and the info they pass to each other. If it were against the law would they be able to function?

[LaughingGirl]

Nevertheless, I think if they were going to do it, they would have done it by now. The shop security have probably forgotten about the OP completely and are going on with their business while he/she is sitting around worried sick about them contacting her employer.

[BazzaS]

Nevertheless, I think if they were going to do it, they would have done it by now. The shop security have probably forgotten about the OP completely and are going on with their business while he/she is sitting around worried sick about them contacting her employer.

 

I absolutely agree.

 

Whilst we can debate (and have been!) the legality of if they COULD, it remains that the main issue is if they WOULD, which

a) is unlikely (including for reasons I've previously posted), and

b) if they were to do it, they'd likely have done so by now, with it becoming even less likely the longer since the events.

 

During any discussions on the legality of "if they could", comparisons with "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" seem unreasonable to me, while "it's against the law!" is less persuasive than "it's against this law" (stating which statute, or citing case law).

 

I'm used to hearing "it's against the law" when I tell a firm I'm calling with a complaint that I'm recording the call.

They never seem able to back it up when I then ask " OK, which law?" (Some of the braver souls have heard of RIPA, but don't seem aware that RIPA doesn't forbid recording a call that you are a party to, only calls that you are not a party to).

Edited February 13, 2013 by BazzaS

[ScarletPimpernel]

I absolutely agree.

 

Whilst we can debate (and have been!) the legality of if they COULD, it remains that the main issue is if they WOULD, which

a) is unlikely (including for reasons I've previously posted), and

b) if they were to do it, they'd likely have done so by now, with it becoming even less likely the longer since the events.

 

During any discussions on the legality of "if they could", comparisons with "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" seem unreasonable to me, while "it's against the law!" is less persuasive than "it's against this law" (stating which statute, or citing case law).

 

I'm used to hearing "it's against the law" when I tell a firm I'm calling with a complaint that I'm recording the call.

They never seem able to back it up when I then ask " OK, which law?" (Some of the braver souls have heard of RIPA, but don't seem aware that RIPA doesn't forbid recording a call that you are a party to, only calls that you are not a party to).

 

Good post.

 

In respect of the issue of shop security notifying an employer of an alleged crime (and let's not forget that's all it is - the retailer elected not to involve the police, so there has been no investigation or prosecution by the proper authorities), my view is that this would not fall within that part of the Data Protection Act which permits disclosure for the prevention and detection of crime.

 

 

There is no crime for an employer to investigate, and I think it would be extremely difficult for a retailer or security guard to justify such an action by suggesting that it was prevent some crime the individual might commit against their employer in the future. If that were the case, they might as well broadcast the information by loudspeaker, in case the individual was minded to do anything from dropping litter to committing genocide.

 

I think we all know that the security guard used the threat of disclosure as a means of intimidation, and that is certainly not a use the DPA was intended for.

 

Time and again we hear of retailers whinging about lack of police interest in minor shoplifting - but this does not excuse them taking the law into their own hands, especially when they don't even bother reporting alleged crimes.

 

I agree entirely with you about companies bleating about RIPA and 'it's illegal' when told a call is being recorded. When dealing with DCAs I always say that I'm recording the call, though after they've started waffling; they say 'it's illegal because you didn't tell me at the start', to which I reply that I didn't need to, as their letterheads all state that calls are recorded, which works both ways.