Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Asda security staff bullying customers


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3228 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

SP - not sure about your thick skin comment?

 

As you say the OP can take what ever course of action he likes and I hope he gets a successful outcome but I won't go on any more in case I upset someone!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I believe the guy who posted this has a problem with authority , due to the fact that he does not know how to interact with them correctly ,because they may be corrupt. his manners are impeccable, his knowledge is vast but alas his interpersonal skills sadly do not exist, Forgive my presumptions , but I think he may be a grey haired old so and so who cannot pronounce nuclear .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the guy who posted this has a problem with authority , due to the fact that he does not know how to interact with them correctly ,because they may be corrupt. his manners are impeccable, his knowledge is vast but alas his interpersonal skills sadly do not exist, Forgive my presumptions , but I think he may be a grey haired old so and so who cannot pronounce nuclear .

thank you for that andy you rancerous old slap head :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what this thread, or at least one side of it, is saying, is that if you invite someone into, lets say your house,

if you see that something is missing like a jewlery box, you cant legally atop them from leaving with it?

 

 

You have no power to stop them?

No power to question them?

Nothing at all?

 

The quest is the only person in there, and then something goes missing. You cant see that thing as he has secreted it so he is free to go?

 

I call b******t. I'm sorry, but if the shop alarms go off and they suspect something has been stolen, they should have every right to physically stop you.

 

The "right" thing for the OP to have done would have been to wait for the security to come over, show the receipt and probably be on his way. It sounds like the op is being overly sensitive. And I was accused of shouting the other day when in fact, it was purely a clear loud instruction not to do something.

Imho, the OP should have stopped when the beeper went off.

 

I can see his picture already on the security office wall with a banned sign across it. Fine, maybe they cant legally stop and search you, but they sure as hell can refuse to let you in for no reason.

 

Like I said, just my opinion and genuinely no intent to cause offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what this thread, or at least one side of it, is saying, is that if you invite someone into, lets say your house, if you see that something is missing like a jewlery box, you cant legally atop them from leaving with it? You have no power to stop them? No power to question them? Nothing at all?

The quest is the only person in there, and then something goes missing. You cant see that thing as he has secreted it so he is free to go?

I call b******t. I'm sorry, but if the shop alarms go off and they suspect something has been stolen, they should have every right to physically stop you.

 

The "right" thing for the OP to have done would have been to wait for the security to come over, show the receipt and probably be on his way. It sounds like the op is being overly sensitive. And I was accused of shouting the other day when in fact, it was purely a clear loud instruction not to do something.

Imho, the OP should have stopped when the beeper went off.

 

I can see his picture already on the security office wall with a banned sign across it. Fine, maybe they cant legally stop and search you, but they sure as hell can refuse to let you in for no reason.

 

Like I said, just my opinion and genuinely no intent to cause offence.

 

I wished you had posted this earlier as I could have just agreed with it and not upset so many!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you consider you were bullied as you were 'asked' to go back into the store. I can understand that you did not like the attitude of the person but you could have dealt with it there and then. Its called fronting up to a problem. It makes a lot of difference to how things are dealt with as you are taken more seriously. When on the odd occasion my mum gets some abuse from a customer she deals with it and more often than not gets an apology.

 

Staff should not be subject to abusive behaviour and nor should customers but I am not sure I would consider being asked, albeit loudly, to go back into a store as being abusive.

 

Maybe what I consider bullying is different to yours but I don't get upset over a bit of shouting - its only words, they can't hurt.

 

Your contention "its only words, they can't hurt" would be strongly disagreed with by victims of internet trolling and also I suggest you read my post more carefully, i was NOT politely asked to return to the store i was shouted at and ordered to return to the store, i chose not to as is my right, do you suggest that shouting AT not TO people is not abuse, i and a lot of others quite rightly think it is, and we respond in our own way, some of us by ignoring the abusers by walking away and lodging an official complaint, while others franticly scramble around looking for excuses (even if it involves misrepresenting what has been written) for the abusive actions of persons who mistakenly believe they hold some power over law abiding individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what this thread, or at least one side of it, is saying, is that if you invite someone into, lets say your house, if you see that something is missing like a jewlery box, you cant legally atop them from leaving with it? You have no power to stop them? No power to question them? Nothing at all?

The quest is the only person in there, and then something goes missing. You cant see that thing as he has secreted it so he is free to go?

I call b******t. I'm sorry, but if the shop alarms go off and they suspect something has been stolen, they should have every right to physically stop you.

 

The "right" thing for the OP to have done would have been to wait for the security to come over, show the receipt and probably be on his way. It sounds like the op is being overly sensitive. And I was accused of shouting the other day when in fact, it was purely a clear loud instruction not to do something.

Imho, the OP should have stopped when the beeper went off.

 

I can see his picture already on the security office wall with a banned sign across it. Fine, maybe they cant legally stop and search you, but they sure as hell can refuse to let you in for no reason.

 

Like I said, just my opinion and genuinely no intent to cause offence.

 

I take no offence at all the simple fact is wether you agree or disagree the law does not give security guards the right to stop people as they see fit, and various agencies consider shouting AT people as abusive, the right thing for YOU to do was what you stated, the right and totally lawfull thing for ME to do was ignore the diatribe and be on my way, and simply by letting members of the public into YOUR shop for YOUR financial benefit does not give you licence to verbally abuse them either in the shop or on a public car park.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what this thread, or at least one side of it, is saying, is that if you invite someone into, lets say your house, if you see that something is missing like a jewlery box, you cant legally atop them from leaving with it? You have no power to stop them? No power to question them? Nothing at all?

The quest is the only person in there, and then something goes missing. You cant see that thing as he has secreted it so he is free to go?

I call b******t. I'm sorry, but if the shop alarms go off and they suspect something has been stolen, they should have every right to physically stop you.

 

The "right" thing for the OP to have done would have been to wait for the security to come over, show the receipt and probably be on his way. It sounds like the op is being overly sensitive. And I was accused of shouting the other day when in fact, it was purely a clear loud instruction not to do something.

Imho, the OP should have stopped when the beeper went off.

 

I can see his picture already on the security office wall with a banned sign across it. Fine, maybe they cant legally stop and search you, but they sure as hell can refuse to let you in for no reason.

 

Like I said, just my opinion and genuinely no intent to cause offence.

 

Terribly sorry old chap, but I suggest you read the legislation on "Any Persons Arrest"

 

The Guard had not witnessed a crime taking place, a bell ringing whilst someone leaves, as they often do by mistake does not constitute witnessing a crime. This Guard did NOT witness a crime taking place, thus ergo etc she/he had no lawful authority to stop the OP. She/he was more than welcome to politely approach the OP, or to call the Police if genuinely suspicious of the OP but that is it.

 

Any Persons Arrest does not allow one to arrest on Suspicion, only an Attested Constable may do that. A Security has no greater power than you or me.

 

If someone accused me of stealing from their house, ran out and attempted to Arrest me, I would use my lawful right to use physical force in defending my person from assault. If they genuinely suspect something is stolen, then call the Police. Because, at the risk of losing my voice, A Zitizen only gets the protection of Any Person's Arrest if they keep to what the legislation says they can do - which is only being able to use it when a crime is witnessed.

 

As an example from your day job Grumpy - if you get assaulted by a debtor just as I walk round the corner and witness it, I would have the right to perform an Any Person's Arrest. Should I just miss it, and you, covered in blood, with a nasty head injury points at the debtor and says "he just assaulted me" should I attempt an APA, I would be leaving myself open to arrest.

 

Door ringers in shops are like Car Alarms, people don't even bother looking anymore, because they go off falsley so often.

 

And as for the strawman of "what if in your house....." were I an ignorant member of the public, I may very well take action, a Security Guard however, will have qualified on a SIA Course, and thus will know full well that she/he cannot arrest on suspicion.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

But is a command of "you there, stop immediately" verbal abuse?

 

How did she "verbally abuse"? Was she swearing? Was she shouting continuously in your face? Or just once to get your attention?

 

Doesn't matter, she was acting outside her authority. The only Authority she has is to arrest someone who has committed a crime she has witnessed.

 

She did not witness a crime, only had a suspicion, and thus no power of arrest.

 

It's really, really simples.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your contention "its only words, they can't hurt" would be strongly disagreed with by victims of internet trolling and also I suggest you read my post more carefully, i was NOT politely asked to return to the store i was shouted at and ordered to return to the store, i chose not to as is my right, do you suggest that shouting AT not TO people is not abuse, i and a lot of others quite rightly think it is, and we respond in our own way, some of us by ignoring the abusers by walking away and lodging an official complaint, while others franticly scramble around looking for excuses (even if it involves misrepresenting what has been written) for the abusive actions of persons who mistakenly believe they hold some power over law abiding individuals.

 

Words can't hurt, no matter what is said they can't hurt. I know that internet trolling can effect people but and those that do it are the worst kind as most would not do it face to face but ultimately it is only words. I have some family experience with it so know what effect it can have but after spending some time with myself and another family member we taught the victim how to stand up for himself (non physically) and it soon stopped.

I never said that you were politely asked to return to the store or ordered to, you said you were told to, that is not an order. If you were that concerned with sorting it out it could have been done. To me being shouted at is not abuse so I think we will have to differ on that. I do believe that you had a right to complain if you felt that the situation was not handled discreetly enough but my opinion is that you could have dealt with it at the time - each to their own.

 

Maybe its my background and where I come from but as a child I would not have survived if I didn't stand up for myself and I think that it has helped me in life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe its my background and where I come from but as a child I would not have survived if I didn't stand up for myself and I think that it has helped me in life.

 

So what should the OP have done?

 

You have had a go at them for refusing to heed the Guard, now you are stating that you "learned to stand up for yourself" that is exactly what the OP did, stand up for themselves!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter, she was acting outside her authority. The only Authority she has is to arrest someone who has committed a crime she has witnessed.

 

She did not witness a crime, only had a suspicion, and thus no power of arrest.

 

It's really, really simples.

 

Sorry caled but that is bull. No where does it state that the security guard was trying to arrest someone. As I said before a mountain is being made here. It could very easily have been dealt with on site at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what should the OP have done?

 

You have had a go at them for refusing to heed the Guard, now you are stating that you "learned to stand up for yourself" that is exactly what the OP did, stand up for themselves!

 

But the OP did not stand up for themselves, they walked away and sent a letter. Standing up would have been to have gone back to the store and dealt with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry caled but that is bull. No where does it state that the security guard was trying to arrest someone. As I said before a mountain is being made here. It could very easily have been dealt with on site at the time.

 

No, nobody has stated she was trying to arrest the OP, the point is she had no power to do anything, she certainly did not have any right to compel the OP back into the store, she behaved wrongly by shouting the odds, the OP took the right decision to walk off, he was not legally bound to respond to her in any way.

 

Running out and shouting and potentially defaming the OP was not professional. The bell going off was not evidence a crime comitted, and she could have handled it a lot better, like by approaching the OP and quietly asking the questions she wanted to ask. Acting like an idiot shouting the odds helped noone, least of all herself.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the OP did not stand up for themselves, they walked away and sent a letter. Standing up would have been to have gone back to the store and dealt with it.

 

The OP stood up for herself by ignoring the accusations/demands and walking away. Why should the OP have wasted their own precious time by going back when they were innocent of a crime? If she was so convinced a crime had been committed she could have attempted an Any Persons Arrest (and since the OP was innocent and no crime was witnessed, got herself and her employer into potentially real trouble, certainly more than a letter of complaint)

 

Do you really hop and jump to the command of everyone you meet, even if they are not someone who is an authority figure such as a Constable? The OP had nothing to deal with, all that would have happened is letting someone with no power think they had power.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

I see that you and Gripper2015 both joined today. From what you say, is it possible that you already know each other please?

 

HB

 

gripper is a very good friend of mine who like myself is a radio ham he decided as a joke to respond to my posts, i am afraid that him reffering to me as grey haired and me reffering to him as a slap head is a long standing in joke between us and i must apologise if anyone on the site though we were being offensive to each other we use this kind of wordplay often and forget that other people may misinteprate it as abuse

Edited by citizenB
restored quote markers
Link to post
Share on other sites

But the OP did not stand up for themselves, they walked away and sent a letter. Standing up would have been to have gone back to the store and dealt with it.

my first instinct was to respond in kind however had i done that i would have no doubt been accused of a public order offence, i decided that my best action to protect myself and my family from the abuse, and the possibility of further problems that could be caused by me bandying words with what i considered to be an officious overbearing abuser was to extacate myself from the situation and persue it in a more civilised setting and in a more civilised manner which i did. i know of a case where a disabled woman was attacked and pinned against a wall by a security guard and when she retaliated the only way she was physicaly able by unleashing a verbal tirade on her attackers she was arrested for a public order offence by the police, the person in question was proved to have done nothing wrong until the point she retaliated against the attack on her person. this and other actions are being looked into at this time so i am unable to say more however i do have a four page summation which i can post at a later date, i think you will have a hard job defending those actions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Words can't hurt, no matter what is said they can't hurt. I know that internet trolling can effect people but and those that do it are the worst kind as most would not do it face to face but ultimately it is only words. I have some family experience with it so know what effect it can have but after spending some time with myself and another family member we taught the victim how to stand up for himself (non physically) and it soon stopped.

I never said that you were politely asked to return to the store or ordered to, you said you were told to, that is not an order. If you were that concerned with sorting it out it could have been done. To me being shouted at is not abuse so I think we will have to differ on that. I do believe that you had a right to complain if you felt that the situation was not handled discreetly enough but my opinion is that you could have dealt with it at the time - each to their own.

 

Maybe its my background and where I come from but as a child I would not have survived if I didn't stand up for myself and I think that it has helped me in life.

could i suggest that you read your post #21 you did indeed state i was asked to go back to the store when in fact the guard came out shouting at me telling me i had to go back into the store, if this does not constitute ordering me to comply to her dictat without the authority to do so, then i must be on drugs or from another planet

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your contention "its only words, they can't hurt" would be strongly disagreed with by victims of internet trolling and also I suggest you read my post more carefully, i was NOT politely asked to return to the store i was shouted at and ordered to return to the store, i chose not to as is my right, do you suggest that shouting AT not TO people is not abuse, i and a lot of others quite rightly think it is, and we respond in our own way, some of us by ignoring the abusers by walking away and lodging an official complaint, while others franticly scramble around looking for excuses (even if it involves misrepresenting what has been written) for the abusive actions of persons who mistakenly believe they hold some power over law abiding individuals.

 

 

Can I draw your attention to R v Wilson [1955] 1 WLR 493? Words could be assault. The tone and actions by the speaker of those words can be seen as aggressive and very intimidating. It may show that other actions may follow if you do not comply with the request/s of the speaker of those words....

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really am struggling to understand all of this so lets break it down.

A security alarm goes off as someone walks through and they continue as if nothing has happened and then gets upset because they get shouted at. Instead of actually dealing with it at the time they go home and start a complaint in which they appear not to be able to remember the sex of the security guard. As I said a mountain out of a molehill but unfortunately is a by product of this politically correct culture in which we live.

 

Lets just change the scenario a bit;

The alarm goes off so the person stops and looks around to see if they are the cause of the alarm. They offer for the bags to be checked as they have nothing to hide. Security, in most cases, will not even check but let you go on your way. Everyone happy and no harm done.

 

By carrying on you made yourself a suspect so why would you not be approached by security (the way they approached you is a different matter). You could, however, still have dealt with this at the time by going back to the store and asking to see the store manager but you chose to take the action you did and have made the said mountain. If you had dealt with this at the time you would have had more chance of an agreeable outcome, your letters will become scrap paper for someones notes and no doubt the complaint will be of some amusement around the office.

 

In response to those that bang on about not seeing the crime committed. scenario:-

2 people in a room, person 1 leaves a mobile phone on the table and leaves the room. When they return the phone is missing, the only person that could have taken it is person 2. Do you accuse them or stick to the premise that you haven't seen any crime being committed so just accept it.

 

mikeymack - I haven't looked up the case you mention but I would think that things were somewhat different in 1955. The OP brought upon this by their own actions. As I have said before I do not condone the attitude of the security guard but ultimately if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide so why not comply with a cursory bag search. Its not demeaning because, as stated by others, the alarms go off all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP brought upon this by their own actions.

So if I go into a supermarket, pay for what I've chosen and leave in an orderly fashion then I'm at fault in some way and it gives other people the right to attempt to stop me? There's usually more than one person entering or leaving a supermarket at any time. Why should I assume it's me who has set off some alarm?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP brought upon this by their own actions.

So if I go into a supermarket, pay for what I've chosen and leave in an orderly fashion then I'm at fault in some way and it gives other people the right to attempt to stop me? There's usually more than one person entering or leaving a supermarket at any time. Why should I assume it's me who has set off some alarm?

 

I agree that their usually is more than one person leaving a supermarket at any one time but this has not been mentioned by the OP. They only brought it on themselves as it could easily have been resolved at the scene. I have often been leaving a shop when the alarm goes off but normally a cursory glance at security is all it takes. Stores lose hundreds of thousands every year through theft so imagine how much this would increase if no checks were made, which ultimately would lead to an increase in prices. If you are ok with this fine but I am not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stores lose hundreds of thousands every year through theft so imagine how much this would increase if no checks were made

I find this comment quite chilling. It implies that perfectly innocent shoppers are a legitimate target for extra 'checks'. The whole point is that they're not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...