Tescos does it again

[hm_murdoch]

Here is another classic Tescos attempt.

 

Tesco threatens two students with legal action... for squeezing a 30p muffin to see how fresh it was | Mail Online

 

I think tescos security must be on commission or something.

[kiptower]

and another 2 inocent people have their details passed to the [problematic] RLP, unlawfully

[Mrs E Blackadder]

I wonder how long it will be before one of these companies tries this tactic with someone who lets their children 'graze' while shopping? I'm always spotting women who let their kiddies eat half the shopping before getting to the checkout, but I've not heard of anyone being prosecuted for it. Could come as a big shock to a parent if that happens - but if they have paid for the goods using the empty packets then where do they actually stand?

[Annoying Twit]

I wonder how long it will be before one of these companies tries this tactic with someone who lets their children 'graze' while shopping? I'm always spotting women who let their kiddies eat half the shopping before getting to the checkout, but I've not heard of anyone being prosecuted for it. Could come as a big shock to a parent if that happens - but if they have paid for the goods using the empty packets then where do they actually stand?

 

I'm no lawyer, and this is just a random guess.

 

At the time the children eat the food, ownership of the food has not passed to the parent. It is by no means guaranteed that the store will accept the customer's offer at the checkout.

 

But I believe that for theft to occur, there must be an intention to permanently deprive the owners of the goods/whatever. Since the food has been eaten, it clearly cannot be returned. If the children ate the food and then left the store without paying for it, then there is clear intention to deprive the store of the goods - clear theft IMHO. I've seen empty packets lying around a supermarket, and guess that this has happened.

 

But, up until the time that the goods are paid for, while the parent and kids are still in the store, then surely there is a legal grey area.

 

It's quite common for kids to graze on food before purchase, and for the food to be paid for at the till. In accepting payment for consumed goods in the past, surely the supermarket has created a precedent where they have accepted this style of shopping, and created a policy of sorts. Such that it might be difficult for them to suddenly start treating such people as criminals. Not unless they, for some time, advertised that they were changing their policy.

 

Returning to Ms E Blackadder's question, I'd guess that if the store allowed the parent to pay for the consumed goods, then they couldn't then try and do "anything" to them. If they wanted to be arsey about things, they'd have to refuse the customer's offer of money for the goods.

[Billybumpkins]

I wonder how long it will be before one of these companies tries this tactic with someone who lets their children 'graze' while shopping? I'm always spotting women who let their kiddies eat half the shopping before getting to the checkout, but I've not heard of anyone being prosecuted for it. Could come as a big shock to a parent if that happens - but if they have paid for the goods using the empty packets then where do they actually stand?

 

 

If they have paid using the empty packaging then that is fine. However, should it be stuffed behind a display once it is empty, then that is the "permanently deprive" and the store can take the action they see fit.

I have pulled several people for doing this, some get warnings to their future behaviour in store and some are banned.

[MARTIN3030]

"I have pulled several people for doing this, some get warnings to their future behaviour in store and some are banned."

 

Any chance you can expand on this ?

In what capacity have you been pulling ?????????

[citizenkain]

The worst thing I ever saw in tescos was people,east europeans by their accents,opening the microwave foodstuff,prodding it to see what it was like then putting it back on the shelf!!I tried explaining to them ya dont do that,but all ya get is,no english,its not just tescos i suppose though,thats why when I go in one of these big stores I always reach right back on the shelf for my goods,never ever take the packet at the front!!!

[Billybumpkins]

"I have pulled several people for doing this, some get warnings to their future behaviour in store and some are banned."

 

Any chance you can expand on this ?

In what capacity have you been pulling ?????????

 

In the capacity of a citizen who has the right to do so under the PACE Act of 1984 and a shareholder of the company these people have been stealing from.

[electron99]

In the capacity of a citizen who has the right to do so under the PACE Act of 1984 and a shareholder of the company these people have been stealing from.

 

Are you saying that I, as a private citizen and shareholder, am allowed to use PACE to caution people, and presumably arrest them. Please explain, with all relevant case law and legislation.

[Billybumpkins]

Are you saying that I, as a private citizen and shareholder, am allowed to use PACE to caution people, and presumably arrest them. Please explain, with all relevant case law and legislation.

 

Yes you can. If i can give you an instance, you are coming home from the pub with your girlfriend and someone attacks her, you can "arrest" the assailant and hold him/her in custody until you can surrender them to a constable. Please read the item below. Hope this helps.

 

 

A citizen's arrest (officially called an "any person arrest") is permitted to be made on any person under section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for an indictable offence, including either way offences (in this section referred to simply as "an offence"), but excluding certain specific ones listed below. It is thus permissible for any person to arrest:

• Anyone who is without doubt in the act of committing an offence, or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be in the act of committing an offence, and
  
• Where an offence has been committed without doubt, anyone who is without doubt guilty of that offence or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it
  

In order for the arrest to be lawful, the following two conditions must also be satisfied:

• 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
    

Use of the second power above is rather risky, since it relies upon the person carrying out the arrest knowing that an indictable or either way offence has been committed. If, for example, the arrested person is later acquitted in court then it could be concluded that no offence has been committed; thus the arrest would be unlawful. The Act therefore gives a constable three additional powers, to arrest:

• Anyone who is (without doubt) about to commit an offence, or whom the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence
  
• Anyone whom the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of an offence which is merely suspected to have taken place
  

A constable's arrest power is not limited to indictable offences, and conditions different from the above apply.

However, a citizen's arrest cannot be made:

• inside a polling station, on a person who commits or is suspected of committing an offence of personation under article 30 of the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007,[22]
  
• inside a polling station, on a person who commits or is suspected of committing an offence of personation under section 60 of the Representation of the People Act 1983[23]
  
• in relation to an offence of stirring up racial hatred under Part 3 or stirring up religious hatred under Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986.[24]
  

In addition to the above, a private person may be authorised to execute an arrest warrant, if the court issuing the warrant has given them the authority to do so, and any person may arrest someone who is "unlawfully at large" (for example, an escaped prisoner).

[edit] Other powers

 

An officer or agent of certain companies may seize and detain any person who has committed an offence against the provisions of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 whose name and residence shall be but unknown to such officer or agent, and take them before a justice of the peace, who "shall proceed with all convenient despatch to the hearing and determining of the complaint against such offender".[25]

[Bookworm]

Ah, another Wikipedia lawyer!

[Button1]

Bookworm, can I just say.....if I had to invite 4 people to have round a dinner table, you would be one of them!

 

Your posts are amazing!!

 

:)

[Bookworm]

Aww shucks *blushes*.

[Billybumpkins]

Ah, another Wikipedia lawyer!

 

 

Nah, just quoting you what you wanted....it is a fact, just ask any loss prevention pro.

[Bookworm]

No, I didn't ask for this, I know you are quite incorrect and quoting Wiki doesn't make you less so... As for facts and asking RLP "pro" (a contradiction in terms in itself, that), well some of us have been trying and do you know, they seem to be rather reluctant to respond? Funny that.

[Billybumpkins]

You asked for the relevant legislation, I gave you it. Why are you having a go at me?? I am just expressing my opinion.

[kiptower]

quote

 

loss prevention pro

 

*****************

that will be the guy with

the shinny new motorola radio

plastic id badge

the white shirt that only gets changed once a week when its grey

seen filling the shelves on isle 6 when no customers in the shop

often seen muttering into the radio making out he is talking to someone,

 

in other words typical so called security guard that who failed the test for a job in MacDee's

 

RLP and its cronnies are [problematic], making money off the back of people who dont know their legal rights

 

RLP staff have NO LEGAL RIGHT

 

to detain and DEMAND ID or any other information from a member of the public

 

nor to threaten any course of action,

 

nor can they give any information that they do obtain to any other person than a POLICE OFFICER

 

as for registers of dishonst people / database they are unlawfull under the data protection act , unless there has been a CRIMINAL Conviction

 

fortunately the MOJ is investigating RLP and a few others in the practices and we should soon see the outcome, and it wont be in favour of RLP and its cronies

Edited October 17, 2009 by kiptower

[Bookworm]

You asked for the relevant legislation, I gave you it. Why are you having a go at me?? I am just expressing my opinion.

No, I didn't ask for any legislation. :-?

I am not "having a go" at all, I am telling you you are mistaken. Whilst the principle you have wiki-ed are correct on paper, there is a large amount of discrepancy between what constitutes a citizen's arrest and the line that gets crossed which makes it become assault. The key word is "indictable" and anyone who wants to become a vigilante should be very wary of crossing that line. If the alleged offence turns out to be non-indictable for whatever reason, the arrester could and often does become the recipient of a charge of assault at least, kidnap in worse case scenario.

 

As for your opinion, of course you are entitled to it! But then don't state it as fact... In your opinion, RLP are doing what they're doing lawfully, rightly etc... In my opinion, you are deluded at best, misleading others at worst. ;-)

[Billybumpkins]

No, I didn't ask for any legislation. :-?

I am not "having a go" at all, I am telling you you are mistaken. Whilst the principle you have wiki-ed are correct on paper, there is a large amount of discrepancy between what constitutes a citizen's arrest and the line that gets crossed which makes it become assault. The key word is "indictable" and anyone who wants to become a vigilante should be very wary of crossing that line. If the alleged offence turns out to be non-indictable for whatever reason, the arrester could and often does become the recipient of a charge of assault at least, kidnap in worse case scenario.

 

As for your opinion, of course you are entitled to it! But then don't state it as fact... In your opinion, RLP are doing what they're doing lawfully, rightly etc... In my opinion, you are deluded at best, misleading others at worst. ;-)

 

If it is unlawful, then why don't you make moves to have them closed down? At least make moves to correct what they are doing wrong.

As in any profession, there are people who do not act within the laid down rules and procedures, I am sure there are some within your profession. A proper well trained loss prevention professional will not make that mistake. The 2 bob uniforms in most, not all, security companies have been given poor training and they suffer for that accordingly.

 

OK you had a bad experience with RLP, but you took the remedies to correct that and well done to you for doing so and I support you wholeheartedly. However, this is the most economic way for a retailer to recover costs which they are legitimatly entitled to. The other way of doing it would be to take a private prosecution which is costly all round and not really the way to go. There is a need for stronger actions to be taken against shoplifters, after all, it is costing you money.

 

Attacking me is not the way to go, I have done nothing against you nor called you names or anything like that. I feel aggreived at your attacks and ask you to stop.

 

There will always be a civil recovery programme, in whatever guise it comes under while the law is what it is. There is no recompense from the courts to retailers that suffer losses.

[shanty]

I think there is a big question mark over whether what RLP do is legitimate or legal though.

[Billybumpkins]

quote

 

loss prevention pro

 

*****************

that will be the guy with

the shinny new motorola radio

plastic id badge

the white shirt that only gets changed once a week when its grey

seen filling the shelves on isle 6 when no customers in the shop

often seen muttering into the radio making out he is talking to someone,

 

in other words typical so called security guard that who failed the test for a job in MacDee's

 

RLP and its cronnies are [problematic], making money off the back of people who dont know their legal rights

 

RLP staff have NO LEGAL RIGHT

 

to detain and DEMAND ID or any other information from a member of the public

 

nor to threaten any course of action,

 

nor can they give any information that they do obtain to any other person than a POLICE OFFICER

 

as for registers of dishonst people / database they are unlawfull under the data protection act , unless there has been a CRIMINAL Conviction

 

fortunately the MOJ is investigating RLP and a few others in the practices and we should soon see the outcome, and it wont be in favour of RLP and its cronies

 

 

No, that is a poorly trained security officer. A loss prevention pro is a completely different beast. Yes, RLP, Drydens and the others that offer this service may be better regualted by the government, but they will still be offering that service to employers.

 

A "register" of dishonest people is held by every retailer, that is the way it is. As long as they deal with that information in a lawful way, then that is up to them.

 

A loss prevention pro, can and will detain a member of the public if the reasonably believe that the person has / is intending to commit an arrestable offence in accordance with what is laid down in PACE.

[kiptower]

there are moves in hand to curtail RLP and its cronies thats why the MOJ are deeply involved

 

but information to what is happening is limted to those who have approached the MOJ and those involved. including those in consultation with the MOJ, because of the Legal implications involved

 

i suggest you read PACE again, regarding detaining a person

 

there is no such legal definition as a "LOSS PROVENTION PRO"

[Billybumpkins]

I read it, and guess what, I was right.

 

You are right, no definition of a "loss provention pro".

[shanty]

 

there is no such legal definition as a "LOSS PROVENTION PRO"

 

Thats because "Loss Prevention Pro " Isn't a legal term.

 

I think you need to look at the "Wikipedia" phrase as quoted above "Any person".No doubt PACE uses the same phrase.

[Bookworm]

If it is unlawful, then why don't you make moves to have them closed down? At least make moves to correct what they are doing wrong.

Who do you think is behind the fact they are investigated by the MoJ, the ICO etc?

As in any profession, there are people who do not act within the laid down rules and procedures,

The problem with RLP is that the whole of the company seems to operate that way.

I am sure there are some within your profession.

As the full-time carer for a disabled child, that's fairly unlikely, although always possible I grant you.

OK you had a bad experience with RLP, but you took the remedies to correct that and well done to you for doing so and I support you wholeheartedly.

Errr, no. Never, not once. Nor would I be likely to as if it happened to me, I am well informed enough to make sure that any such confrontation would not end up well for them, not me! ;-)

However, this is the most economic way for a retailer to recover costs which they are legitimatly entitled to.

"may", not "are". And I am afraid that it isn't up to them to decide that, it's up to the courts.

The other way of doing it would be to take a private prosecution which is costly all round and not really the way to go.

Not at all. The recovery would be a case of a civil case in small claims, with costs to be borne by the loser, and if RLP were so sure of their ground, that's what they would do. Of course, they would then have to show how they reached those amounts they so gleefully demand off innocent or not so innocent people and that may not prove so easy... You also happily disregard the fact that a lot of the people who get attacked by RLP are in fact INNOCENT, and that no court in the land would find in favour of RLP and maybe just maybe that's why they don't try, relying instead on threats?

There is a need for stronger actions to be taken against shoplifters, after all, it is costing you money.

Nah, I think that shareholders dividends cost me a lot more. I think that the sods who made a fortune on the back of people with no money, paid themselves millions and then ran rather than to repay any of it, thus creating the worst recession ever, these are the ones who are costing me a lot of money. There always have been and always will be shoplifters, but what they cost me in real term would be easily absorbed in the running costs of the big stores if they wanted to... I do believe that the loss of products is in fact built into the profit and loss margin of any self-respecting company, so the old chestnut is a bit of a red herring, IMO.

Attacking me is not the way to go, I have done nothing against you nor called you names or anything like that. I feel aggreived at your attacks and ask you to stop.

WHAT attacks? Ok, so I made one joke about "Wiki lawyer", and if you really got offended by that, then I do apologise.

 

There will always be a civil recovery programme, in whatever guise it comes under while the law is what it is. There is no recompense from the courts to retailers that suffer losses.

The law is what it is. And you don't seem to know it. May I suggest you familiarise yourself with "liquidated damages"? And there IS a redress for retailers' losses under that very clause of liquidated damages. BUT the downside of it for companies like RLP is that they are expected to quantify those losses, and it's much easier to coerce people instead, taking legal shortcuts wherever necessary.