Asda security staff bullying customers

[SabreSheep]

Every time an alarm goes off when I'm even close to the door, I stop and wait so the Guard can see who carry's on.

 

A shop is Private property at the end of the day. As you are there by their invitation it is not unreasonable to be co-operative with their security measures. (Again the alleged attitude of the guard is unacceptable)

 

By not doing so, you have singled yourself out as a suspect.

 

If this were me as the manager

 

I would be investigating the guards comments

I would also be revoking your right to come to the store.

[SabreSheep]

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.

 

 

These extra checks are not always designed to stop shoplifting.

 

How many people have got home to find a security tag on their clothes or products that can not be removed resulting in a second visit to the store wasting time and money to get removed.

[tony3x]

Every time an alarm goes off when I'm even close to the door, I stop and wait so the Guard can see who carry's on.

 

A shop is Private property at the end of the day. As you are there by their invitation it is not unreasonable to be co-operative with their security measures. (Again the alleged attitude of the guard is unacceptable)

 

By not doing so, you have singled yourself out as a suspect.

 

If this were me as the manager

 

I would be investigating the guards comments

I would also be revoking your right to come to the store.

 

Well said. At last someone else that can see the bigger picture.

[tony3x]

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.

 

How do you distinguish between innocent and guilty shoppers?

[hightail]

How do you distinguish between innocent and guilty shoppers?

Well you see the guilty ones stealing and continue the proper observations. Then you call the police and go through proper process. Other than that they're innocent. There are other things you can do of course such as arranging your shop so it isn't easy to steal. I have no time for thieves but I have been the subject of bored employees targeting elderly customers on leaving a supermarket and searching their bags - for sport. Or maybe they'd had a spate of thefts by pensioners so they were profiling, maybe that's how they chose to distinguish the 'guilty'.

[tony3x]

How do you distinguish between innocent and guilty shoppers?

Well you see the guilty ones stealing and continue the proper observations. Then you call the police and go through proper process. Other than that they're innocent. There are other things you can do of course such as arranging your shop so it isn't easy to steal. I have no time for thieves but I have been the subject of bored employees targeting elderly customers on leaving a supermarket and searching their bags - for sport. Or maybe they'd had a spate of thefts by pensioners so they were profiling, maybe that's how they chose to distinguish the 'guilty'.

 

"you see the guilty ones stealing". I guess to do this you would next extra staff (security or store) which would mean extra costs which would then mean an increase in prices. If you have a better idea of how to stop the thieves maybe you should put it forward as I am sure that many would like to know.

 

You could always exercise your right to shop where they do not have any security and pay the higher prices that go with it.

 

In an ideal world it would not be an issue but we do not live in that world.

[goodatresearch]

Personally if i had the time, what I would have said something like "who on earth do you think your talking to" and demanded the managers presence. If the manager turned out to be a tool i would refuse to allow my bag searched and told them to call the police if they wanted to accuse me of anything. Seems a little extreme, but security guards are trained therefore should know they have no legal authority and act accordingly. Storemanagers , especially in places like Asda, who are losing customers, should exercise good customer service.

 

Ad to revoking my right of entry, bring it on. Loads other supermarkets. All those comments by tony3x about standing up for himself are illogical. Doing what your told by someone shouting on you who has no authority is the opposite of sticking up for yourself.

 

And BTW, when I have been stopped when bleepers have gone off, I have allowed my bag to be searched but the guards in question have always been polite.

 

 

Every time an alarm goes off when I'm even close to the door, I stop and wait so the Guard can see who carry's on.

 

A shop is Private property at the end of the day. As you are there by their invitation it is not unreasonable to be co-operative with their security measures. (Again the alleged attitude of the guard is unacceptable)

 

By not doing so, you have singled yourself out as a suspect.

 

If this were me as the manager

 

I would be investigating the guards comments

I would also be revoking your right to come to the store.

[goodatresearch]

[

Good one

 

QUOTE=hightail;4753923]How do you distinguish between innocent and guilty shoppers?

Well you see the guilty ones stealing and continue the proper observations. Then you call the police and go through proper process. Other than that they're innocent. There are other things you can do of course such as arranging your shop so it isn't easy to steal. I have no time for thieves but I have been the subject of bored employees targeting elderly customers on leaving a supermarket and searching their bags - for sport. Or maybe they'd had a spate of thefts by pensioners so they were profiling, maybe that's how they chose to distinguish the 'guilty'.

[lonestardavid]

certain people posting are completely missing the point.

1 does the alarm sounding does that mean or proove you have stolen something NO

2 if the alarm sounds do i have a legal obligation to submit myself to a search NO

3 are security staff right to exit a shop and start shouting at people NO

4 do security staff have the right to shout orders at people to return to the store NO

5 do security staff have the right to arrest or detain you because the alarm sounds NO

6 did the guard in my case give any thought to my dignity inline with her training NO

7 did the guard overstep the bounds of both decency and her own limited authority YES

 

people can scramble around looking to excuse the guards actions for whatever spurious examples they care to produce but read the above IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE

[goodatresearch]

They didn't forget the sex of the guard, they just couldn't tell. Not unusual really. As to the 1955 case, it is still relevant. Also look at s4a public order act 1984 and s154 criminal justice and public order act 1994. In other words there are a whole raft of laws that cover this sort of situation. Someone recently was arrested for giving someone a hard stare.

 

 

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.

[goodatresearch]

Totally agree with you

 

certain people posting are completely missing the point.

1 does the alarm sounding does that mean or proove you have stolen something NO

2 if the alarm sounds do i have a legal obligation to submit myself to a search NO

3 are security staff right to exit a shop and start shouting at people NO

4 do security staff have the right to shout orders at people to return to the store NO

5 do security staff have the right to arrest or detain you because the alarm sounds NO

6 did the guard in my case give any thought to my dignity inline with her training NO

7 did the guard overstep the bounds of both decency and her own limited authority YES

 

people can scramble around looking to excuse the guards actions for whatever spurious examples they care to produce but read the above IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE

[tony3x]

Personally if i had the time, what I would have said something like "who on earth do you think your talking to" and demanded the managers presence. If the manager turned out to be a tool i would refuse to allow my bag searched and told them to call the police if they wanted to accuse me of anything. Seems a little extreme, but security guards are trained therefore should know they have no legal authority and act accordingly. Storemanagers , especially in places like Asda, who are losing customers, should exercise good customer service.

 

Ad to revoking my right of entry, bring it on. Loads other supermarkets. All those comments by tony3x about standing up for himself are illogical. Doing what your told by someone shouting on you who has no authority is the opposite of sticking up for yourself.

 

And BTW, when I have been stopped when bleepers have gone off, I have allowed my bag to be searched but the guards in question have always been polite.

 

Not be funny but what a load of tosh. All this about security guards have no authority!! Why not just do the decent thing and allow the search. If you are not happy with the way it is dealt with complain there and then not wait until you get home and have the comfort of your computer. Add that no one was accusing anyone of theft, just wanted to check a bag.

[tony3x]

They didn't forget the sex of the guard, they just couldn't tell. Not unusual really. As to the 1955 case, it is still relevant. Also look at s4a public order act 1984 and s154 criminal justice and public order act 1994. In other words there are a whole raft of laws that cover this sort of situation. Someone recently was arrested for giving someone a hard stare.

 

Couldn't tell what sex the person was - yeah right!

 

As for the 'hard stare' - if that was Roy Keane incident he was found not guilty and the CPS were criticised by the judge for even bringing the case.

 

Unfortunately I have a life so do not have time to scroll through various acts that do not concern me.

 

I sincerely hope that a lot of you are never faced with a real situation that requires a bit of back bone as I feel that you would soon find out that the world is not a nice place and you do not always get the protection of some act or other.

[caledfwlch]

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..

 

I strongly suggest you look up the legislation and powers of Any Persons Arrest.

 

In the scenario you outline, your only course of action would be to call the Police.

 

Because, for the 50th time you can only perform an Any Persons Arrest if you witness the crime actually taking place. Because you have not actually seen the suspect remove the phone and secret it somewhere, you still, legally speaking, only have suspicion and you cannot arrest on suspicion, only an Attested Constable can do that.

 

It really is that simple, and I would assume APA is only applicable when witnessing a crime, not for suspicion for obvious reasons - Can you imagine the sheer chaos, the trouble, the brawls and assaults that would occur if people could use APA merely on suspicion?

 

Here is a Citizen's Arrest performed correctly.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11171994.Citizen_s_arrest_after_vandal_seen_damaging_car_in_the_early_hours/?ref=mry

 

Residents see a man vandalising a car, and perform an APA and call Police - Job done, thanks from the Police and cups of tea all round for a job well done.

 

Here is what happens when you try to arrest someone on "suspicion" because you did not witness the individual actually commit the crime, just assumed.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/129244/Man-charged-after-citizen-s-arrest

Even if he get's off the charges for restraint/false detention, I would imagine he will get done for assaulting the youth who merely "approached" him.

 

It is a perfect example of why you should know your rights before carrying out an Arrest, this man clearly knew there was such a thing as Citizens Arrest, and just as clearly did not understand the circumstances in which he can use it.

 

In general the Courts eventually drop the charges, but that doesn't make up for weeks or months of stress. It is easier and better to leave it to the professionals unless you actually witness the crime taking place.

 

The common thread where the Arrestor is themselves arrested is always that they did not witness the arestee actually commiting crime, but made an assumption, followed by using beyond "reasonable force"

 

As for words/bullying, aggresive behaviour in Public (and indeed in a house) even without swearing can be seen and dealt with by the Police as a Public Order Offence.

[goodatresearch]

Its OK, your not funny.

 

I didn't say the guard was accusing the op of theft.

 

It isn't a load of tosh, the guard had no authority. Unlike the guard who appears to have been asleep during his training, I wasn't asleep when studying law beyond 1st degree level.

 

 

Not be funny but what a load of tosh. All this about security guards have no authority!! Why not just do the decent thing and allow the search. If you are not happy with the way it is dealt with complain there and then not wait until you get home and have the comfort of your computer. Add that no one was accusing anyone of theft, just wanted to check a bag.

[goodatresearch]

I dont have to scroll through various acts, I'm legally qualified and have working legal experience.

 

Yes the Keene case was ridiculous, I mentioned it to highlight that the idea that shouting at someone cannot be harassment had no legal basis.

 

As to your assumptions about never being faced with real situations requiring a backbone, you have no idea about my life so cannot comment. Try working in A and E and being faced with a violent drunk or some one high on drugs or being faced with an aggressive father during a contact case. Real world indeed.

 

 

 

[/sVIEW]

Couldn't tell what sex the person was - yeah right!

 

As for the 'hard stare' - if that was Roy Keane incident he was found not guilty and the CPS were criticised by the judge for even bringing the case.

 

Unfortunately I have a life so do not have time to scroll through various acts that do not concern me.

 

I sincerely hope that a lot of you are never faced with a real situation that requires a bit of back bone as I feel that you would soon find out that the world is not a nice place and you do not always get the protection of some act or other.

[lonestardavid]

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....

 

I totally agree with the above the guards aggressive actions were clearly an attempt to intimidate me, and as such was clearly an attempt to bully me into returning to the store wasting MY time and submitting myself to a search simply because she shouted at me to do so even though she had no lawful authority to act in this manner, as has been alluded to on here by a friend of mine, i have grey hair i wear glasses and i am of of very slight build i am also very polite and reasonably well spoken, as a result of this persons have in the past mistakenly assumed that i am some sort of pushover and they can in some cases attempt push me around, and this guards actions would seem to confirm that, and as a result she came unstuck. i have no doubt this will happen again as it would appear to me that aggression is her way of dealing with problems, you cannot train out of someone what they truly are.

[tony3x]

certain people posting are completely missing the point.

1 does the alarm sounding does that mean or proove you have stolen something NO

2 if the alarm sounds do i have a legal obligation to submit myself to a search NO

3 are security staff right to exit a shop and start shouting at people NO

4 do security staff have the right to shout orders at people to return to the store NO

5 do security staff have the right to arrest or detain you because the alarm sounds NO

6 did the guard in my case give any thought to my dignity inline with her training NO

7 did the guard overstep the bounds of both decency and her own limited authority YES

 

people can scramble around looking to excuse the guards actions for whatever spurious examples they care to produce but read the above IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE

 

1 - it might

2 - who said you were to be searched

3 - Probably not and should be dealt with via a complaint as you are doing, although I would have done it at the time to stop any ambiguity

4 - Probably not , see above

5 - No, but you weren't being arrested

6 - stop being over sensitive

7 - see above

 

I hope that you don't know anyone that owns a shop that is targeted by thieves as I am sure they may not entirely agree with you.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that you could easily have gone back, showed your receipt (made a complaint about the guard if you so felt) and been on your way (possibly with a gift card as a way of compensation). But no, you decided that you were above that and started an unnecessary chain of letters/phone calls.

 

For what its worth if I were a security guard (thankfully I am not) and someone did not stop when the alarm went off I would follow them outside of the store and ask them to accompany me back. If they refused I would have no qualms about detaining them and calling the police because "I was sure that I see them put something in their bag".

 

By not acknowledging the alarm you places your self under suspicion.

[lonestardavid]

Not be funny but what a load of tosh. All this about security guards have no authority!! Why not just do the decent thing and allow the search. If you are not happy with the way it is dealt with complain there and then not wait until you get home and have the comfort of your computer. Add that no one was accusing anyone of theft, just wanted to check a bag.

 

I feel i owe you an apologie i did not realise that you had been appointed supreme arbiter of what is and is not "the decent thing" as to your use of the word "tosh" it is not tosh its the law, a law which has been put in place to protect law abiding persons from the unreasonable actions of security staff who behave in an aggressive or abusive manner, by pure coincidence much the same as the guard in this case, you say that the guard was not accusing me of theft and she just wanted to check my bag, that is clearly "tosh" if she wanted to check my bag then she WAS accusing me of theft by implication, that is of course not the case if she had some sort of bag fetish and merely wanted to check my bag to satiate her desire for some sort of sick turn on.

[tony3x]

I feel i owe you an apologie i did not realise that you had been appointed supreme arbiter of what is and is not "the decent thing" as to your use of the word "tosh" it is not tosh its the law, a law which has been put in place to protect law abiding persons from the unreasonable actions of security staff who behave in an aggressive or abusive manner, by pure coincidence much the same as the guard in this case, you say that the guard was not accusing me of theft and she just wanted to check my bag, that is clearly "tosh" if she wanted to check my bag then she WAS accusing me of theft by implication, that is of course not the case if she had some sort of bag fetish and merely wanted to check my bag to satiate her desire for some sort of sick turn on.

 

Sorry if I offended you, especially knowing how sensitive you are!!

 

I used tosh because that is what all this is. Easily sorted with a receipt check. I would suggest that you pick where you shop more carefully in future.

 

Oh and for what it is worth I have grey hair and wear glasses and do not experience what you seem to have done so it must be something else!

[goodatresearch]

Now you are being funny.

 

So your admitting on a forum that you would lie to detain someone. Oh dear me.

 

So in this case, all you know is the bleepers have gone off so you detain the op and lie to the police. The police search the bag and see the op is innocent and the op states that you shouted at her and when she refused your insistance to come back into the shop you put your hands on her and detained her.

 

Guess what would happen now. Perhaps you should scroll through the relevant Acts and find out.

 

 

1 - it might

2 - who said you were to be searched

3 - Probably not and should be dealt with via a complaint as you are doing, although I would have done it at the time to stop any ambiguity

4 - Probably not , see above

5 - No, but you weren't being arrested

6 - stop being over sensitive

7 - see above

 

I hope that you don't know anyone that owns a shop that is targeted by thieves as I am sure they may not entirely agree with you.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that you could easily have gone back, showed your receipt (made a complaint about the guard if you so felt) and been on your way (possibly with a gift card as a way of compensation). But no, you decided that you were above that and started an unnecessary chain of letters/phone calls.

 

For what its worth if I were a security guard (thankfully I am not) and someone did not stop when the alarm went off I would follow them outside of the store and ask them to accompany me back. If they refused I would have no qualms about detaining them and calling the police because "I was sure that I see them put something in their bag".

 

By not acknowledging the alarm you places your self under suspicion.

[p3t3r]

For what its worth if I were a security guard (thankfully I am not) and someone did not stop when the alarm went off I would follow them outside of the store and ask them to accompany me back. If they refused I would have no qualms about detaining them and calling the police because "I was sure that I see them put something in their bag".

 

Similar circumstance happened to me, security guards felt they had the right to grab my arms and frogmarch me back into the store. Resulted in police being called by myself and the store. Police said I could make complaint of assault. In the end, I settled for an apology and £150 of gift vouchers.

 

This was a long time ago, over 10 years ago. I see that problem still exists today, especially with people like yourself who believe they can detain someone because "I was sure that I see them put something in their bag" - that would be illegal, false imprisonment maybe... since you decide to detain them based upon actually no reason to detain them other than your own belief of 'something'.

 

Whilst security guards have an official uniform, they have no more powers than that of a customer. Certainly they can not go around assaulting people for no reason, whether that be physical or verbal assault.

[caledfwlch]

 

For what its worth if I were a security guard (thankfully I am not) and someone did not stop when the alarm went off I would follow them outside of the store and ask them to accompany me back. If they refused I would have no qualms about detaining them and calling the police because "I was sure that I see them put something in their bag".

 

By not acknowledging the alarm you places your self under suspicion.

 

For what it is worth were you to attempt such an arrest, and especially if the victim was innocent, it could well be you finishing your shift early, and going home via a night in the cells.

 

You are NOT allowed to arrest on suspicion. a decent Lawyer would demand the CCTV, and if for example you are on it, not looking at the OP, only reacting to the bell going off, you would be stuffed.

 

Questions would be asked like, why did you not respond the moment you "saw" something get put in the bag, why you werent following the OP until the bell went off and so on.

 

And even if you could successfuly argue an honest mistake, should you have picked on an innocent party who then resisted your attempt at arrest and put you in hospital, you would have no comeback, legal or civil. We have the right to resist wrongful citizens arrest, because if no crime has been comitted, it is not an arrest but assault.

 

Said half decent lawyer upon viewing the CCTV as above, would also probably want charges such as making false allegations brought in.

[goodatresearch]

Yep, tony3x following his little scenerio could find himself facing assault charges, charges for false imprisonment/kidnapping, charges under the Public Order Act. Also he could lose his job and be sued in the civil court for damages AND his employer would be vicariously liable for his actions.

 

Perhaps it just as well for all concerned that he isn't a security guard.

 

QUOTE=p3t3r;4754019]Similar circumstance happened to me, security guards felt they had the right to grab my arms and frogmarch me back into the store. Resulted in police being called by myself and the store. Police said I could make complaint of assault. In the end, I settled for an apology and £150 of gift vouchers.

 

This was a long time ago, over 10 years ago. I see that problem still exists today, especially with people like yourself who believe they can detain someone because "I was sure that I see them put something in their bag" - that would be illegal, false imprisonment maybe... since you decide to detain them based upon actually no reason to detain them other than your own belief of 'something'.

 

Whilst security guards have an official uniform, they have no more powers than that of a customer. Certainly they can not go around assaulting people for no reason, whether that be physical or verbal assault.

[SabreSheep]

I feel i owe you an apologie i did not realise that you had been appointed supreme arbiter of what is and is not "the decent thing" as to your use of the word "tosh" it is not tosh its the law, a law which has been put in place to protect law abiding persons from the unreasonable actions of security staff who behave in an aggressive or abusive manner, by pure coincidence much the same as the guard in this case, you say that the guard was not accusing me of theft and she just wanted to check my bag, that is clearly "tosh" if she wanted to check my bag then she WAS accusing me of theft by implication, that is of course not the case if she had some sort of bag fetish and merely wanted to check my bag to satiate her desire for some sort of sick turn on.

 

Just a reminder An alarm going off does not mean an offense has been committed. It means that something has set the alarm off, which could be in a security tag that was not removed at the point of purchase. All possibly innocent. Even failed detagging has been known to set alarms off going into different stores!!!!