Clearly you are using a Mac. Take screen shot by holding CMD + SHIFT + 3. Open this file (defaults to your desktop). Should open in Preview. Then do File/Save As... And choose PDF as the format in drop down.

Did you offer to pay for the damaged goods at the store? If you owe anything to the store is is the cost of the damaged goods only. Costs like this are totally wrong and have been argued about elsewhere. You are not guilty in the eyes of the law either. Even though you paid the £80. See this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?274886-FPN-s-(Fixed-Penalty-Notices)-are-NOT-an-admission-of-guilt. They could chase you for the debt of the cost of the damaged goods but not if they hadn't tried the simple approach first of asking you to pay in the store. Did the police note anything about that? Did you say you wouldn't pay for the damaged item at the time? I wouldn't do anything to pay this extortionate amount without going through wilkinson's customer complaints first. You didn't mention how wilkinson's security staff treated you when they caught you, did they "interview" you, or did they just hold you till the police came? Did they make you sign anything?

rakmaninoff did you get resolution to this yet? What did the CAB advise?

You could check to see if these items (computers particularly got disposed of by the police while you were imprisoned.) I think would have been under the Police (Property) Act 1897. Something similar was discussed here Gough & Anor v West Midlands Police [2004] EWCA Civ 206 (02 March 2004) . Do you have any record, or a photos with you using them in your home, internet records? If you purchased any of this on the internet it might help with any gaps in the records. You were guilty of the travellers cheque fraud so I would have thought they may have tried to keep valuables if they saw them as being the proceeds of your crime. At some point converting them to cash. However, if all above board then records of this should exist.

Suggest you private message JonCris with full details if you haven't already.

I guess my other thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?276418-What-does-a-police-warrant-card-look-like also points to them acting like they have authority to make you go to the back of the store. It isn't always the case that to be "invited" somewhere is a good thing, e.g. a party, if someone "invited you outside" you might think you'd be duffed up. If they really wanted to be professional, they would set up an above board training regime and code of conduct for these staff. They should perform minimal interaction with you while they wait for the police. They should not talk to you etc. They need to ensure your welfare while they wait though. They would be advised to prove they did all this later. Hence keep you in sight of CCTV. There must be enough information out there, we are now several years on from the 1998 cases, for the stores to be in a position of "ought to know" about the goings on of their staff and their agents. The store is therefore likely to be liable for their illegal actions Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009). The basic understanding of what should occur in such situations should be taught in school as part of citizenship lessons. This might go a long way to keeping everyone on the right path.

I guess the detective bit is not too controversial. However, I wonder what the situation is when used with a flash of an ID in this way. We all see the usual clip on ID's, on lanyards around someones neck etc. The ones used by the store detective was a black leather fold over type that he flopped out to show. In all other aspects when someone has come to read the meter etc. the ID card is straightforward plastic laminated type. All tend to look quite scruffy and obviously you know what kind of person you are dealing with. I wonder if Boots store detectives have a different ID badge to everyone else in terms of type and colour etc.?

You should read the link in my post http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?265495-security-guard-rules&p=3123369&viewfull=1#post3123369. The person in question accused of stealing a chocolate bar was an off-duty police officer, not a "thieving little scoat" as you so put it.

So you see the argument (whether this is right or not I can't say) that if they had reasonable grounds to arrest you in the first place then if they don't call the police they must have held you without authority. If this is part of their training then it would suggest a conspiracy to falsely imprison on behalf of their employer under the s.1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 surely?

Again the Act seems clear here too. If you get arrested you need to be taken to the cop shop (unless a police constable released you). Perhaps there is case law here too, would be nice to know. Too many times the security guards effect an arrest under section 24A but then fail to follow through. This would seem then more akin to the act of a kidnapper! "...30 Arrest elsewhere than at police station. (1)Subsection (1A) applies where a person is, at any place other than a police station— (a)arrested by a constable for an offence, or (b)taken into custody by a constable after being arrested for an offence by a person other than a constable. (1A)The person must be taken by a constable to a police station as soon as practicable after the arrest. ..."

Here is the text from the Act "28 Information to be given on arrest. (1)Subject to subsection (5) below, where a person is arrested, otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest, the arrest is not lawful unless the person arrested is informed that he is under arrest as soon as is practicable after his arrest. (2)Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (1) above applies regardless of whether the fact of the arrest is obvious. (3)Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest. (4)Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (3) above applies regardless of whether the ground for the arrest is obvious. (5)Nothing in this section is to be taken to require a person to be informed— (a)that he is under arrest; or (b)of the ground for the arrest, if it was not reasonably practicable for him to be so informed by reason of his having escaped from arrest before the information could be given." It is clear that other people than a constable as per 28.2 must comply. Or do you have a case where this has been tested, if so please provide link to it on BAILII. This isn't the same as requiring that a full caution is given as the ordinary citizen wouldn't be expected to know this. Just a simple "I'm arresting you because I suspect you of shoplifting."

Considering all the help JonCris is giving people it isn't helpful to go into the odd typo that people make. Its the substance of what they do and say that is important. From Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1 (23 May 1935) comes "...Through-out the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt ... " That is to say you are innocent until proven guilty. Luckily (in this instance) we get the above principle underwritten by Article 6.2 of Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

I am new to these forums but since joining I've seen a lot on this particular subject. I know I've added to it a bit. I think a single sticky with the final reality would be good. I guess we aren't really too concerned about the initial arrest by a citizen based on reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed? I'm concerned that PACE 28 and then PACE 301A especially don't often then follow in the stories posted. You may then end up in their quiet office for an interrogation with no police involvement. I also believe this case must have a bearing too Self, R. v [1992] EWCA Crim 2 (25 February 1992) on the whole issue of mistakenly taking things.

I can't find any details of these cases other than their general titles, Tesco v Kular (1998), HMV v Plummer (1998), and Littlewoods v Ishafaq (2000). This suggests to me that they are proceedings in a low court so don't infer legal precedent? I saw another firm offer up Borders & Others v. Jordan (2004) too. If this were test cases then they should be something that BAILII gets to have a copy of the judgement.

A lot of dangers exist for those working with gas that are not qualified to do so. See http://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/about/the_gas_safe_register_scheme.aspx for more on this. I have personally experienced the aftermath of the death of a close friend due to a gas installation fault. There is a lot of difference between some water damage from bad plumbing and the consequences of faulty gas installation. You are unlikely to be insured if anything did happen as a result too. I believe that B&Q should never sell such devices they know to be used for gas to someone not holding the relevant proof of competence. They sell these devices but usually with a warning. They also make matters worse, for those determined to believe they can do it themselves, by removing the instructions that would otherwise be included. I think this is somewhat pathetic. Qualified installers have an account with a trade supplier where they get these valves at better prices and/or quality.