Bag Search Refusal

Showing 1-132 of 132 messages
Bag Search Refusal Doggy 4/25/01 5:34 AM
I run a large business and today had an "episode" with a customer who
refused to let us look in his bag. We have clearly posted "conditions of
entry" signs at our entrance, and have verbal reminders over our in-store PA
system, regarding the bag checks.
The customer was abusing our register assistant, and she was trying to
explain that she is obliged to check all bags upon a customer leaving the
store. I was in another part of the store and heard loud voices, and went to
investigate. I said hello to the customer, and asked what was going on, he
replied that "she wants to search my bag and I wont let her". I tried to
explain the conditions of entry to him, but he told me it was illegal for us
to look into his bag, and that no way was he going to let us. He also said
that the fact we were asking to look into his bag meant that we were
accusing him of stealing from us. We moved out into the complex my business
resides in to continue the discussion. At no time did I yell or become
abusive. He told me how a "police seargent" friend of his had told him that
we could not check his bag. At this I was frustrated and simply said "We
would prefer if you did not shop in our store" to this he replied "I will
come into your store when I want, and I will not let you check my bag". At
this stage I was frustrated and most annoyed this person was wasting my
time. He then proceeded to tell me the only way we can check his bag is to
call the Police and have them present at a bag check. He also threatened
legal action against my business, told me I was harrasing him, and that he
would go to the papers, television and give me a bad name. At this point I
said goodbye to him and went back to my store.

As my store is private property, and we extend an invitation to our
customers to shop with us, I DO have a legal right to refuse entry, and to
ask a customer to leave at any time. I know that I a should not give a
reason for doing so, and that if they refuse to leave the Police have to
escort them from the premises. I have also in the past had court orders
taken out on our known shop stealing customers to prevent them from entering
my store.

What I really want to know is; Does the gentleman in the above case have the
right to refuse to open his bag for us to look in, and in doing so, does
this give ME the right to request that he not do business with us? The next
time he comes in the store im sure the same thing will happen, he will
refuse a bag check and I will have to see him.

This is a very confusing issue, and one that I have only come accross once
before in 10years, considering we get over 4000 people a day through our
store, these customers represent a minute percentage of total bag checks. I
am inclined at this stage to simply let the customer have his own way and
not get his bag checked, simply to save trouble. But what if he is indeed
stealing from us, and was trying to call my bluff.
Before I go as far as seeking legal advice, I would be interested in the
opinions of this group (yes even the witty replies from Rod).
Thanks

Doggy

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 4/25/01 5:48 AM
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:05:54 +0930, "Doggy" <dog_n...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Very superficially:

>What I really want to know is; Does the gentleman in the above case have the
>right to refuse to open his bag for us to look in,

Yes.

> and in doing so, does
>this give ME the right to request that he not do business with us?

You have that 'right' anyway.

Bag Search Refusal Kristen 4/25/01 6:00 AM
If your premises is registered, and as you say, there are signs clearly
making it a condition of entry that bags be checked on the way out, then the
customer must present their bag if asked.  If the customer refuses, then the
customer can be detained by the security staff of that store.  Ultimately he
can be charged with stealing and the police will escort him to the police
station where he WILL be searched.  You are not violating his rights in
searching his bag, or in having his bag searched by staff or police.  On
entering your store, your signs and message over the loud speaker makes him
fully aware that if he is asked for his bag on leaving and he refuses to
present it, he is in the wrong.

His babbling about the police friend telling him this and that, and that he
will run crying to the media, is a bluff in making you back off.  Any
newspaper or television program would laugh at his little tale.

Should you wish to retain the services of my legal firm, please contact me
and I will be happy to discuss it with you further (at no cost to you).
Take NOSPAM out of my address to reply.

K.

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/25/01 7:06 AM
Kristen wrote:

> If your premises is registered, and as you say, there are signs clearly
> making it a condition of entry that bags be checked on the way out, then the
> customer must present their bag if asked.  If the customer refuses, then the
> customer can be detained by the security staff of that store.

Bullshit.  Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security staff
are) have no right to search, detain, restrain, encumber, arrest or
otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or molest other private citizens
(which Mr. Shopcustomer is).  If they suspect that someone has stolen
something from the shop the appropriate response is to ring the police
and report a suspected crime.  They might have the right to refuse someone entry
to
their store but they do not have the right to search their bags, anymore
than posting a sign "a condition of entry to this store is that all customers
be strip searched by security staff on their way out" would give them the
right to do that.

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 4/25/01 7:44 AM
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:45:41 +1100, Alina Holgate
<hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote:

>Kristen wrote:
>
>> You are not violating his rights in searching his bag
>
>If you check Austlii you will find that even employers do not have
>an absolute right to search their employees bags.

>
>> Should you wish to retain the services of my legal firm, please contact me
>> and I will be happy to discuss it with you further (at no cost to you).
>> Take NOSPAM out of my address to reply.
>
>Is this sort of solicitation legal and ethical?

With advice like that, it's might be the last resort for her "firm".

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/25/01 7:46 AM
Kristen wrote:

> If your premises is registered, and as you say, there are signs clearly
> making it a condition of entry that bags be checked on the way out, then the
> customer must present their bag if asked.  If the customer refuses, then the
> customer can be detained by the security staff of that store.

Bullshit.  Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security staff
are) have no legal right to search, detain, restrain, encumber, arrest or


otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or molest other private citizens
(which Mr. Shopcustomer is).  If they suspect that someone has stolen
something from the shop the appropriate response is to ring the police
and report a suspected crime.  They might have the right to refuse
someone entry to their store but they do not have the right to search
their bags, anymore than posting a sign saying "a condition of entry to

this store is that all customers be strip searched by security staff on
their way out" would give them the legal right to do that.  Even the
police don't have absolute rights to obtain people's names and
addresses, search people or haul them into the station, for god's
sake.  Why do people persist in this dopey notion that signs posted
up in shops have any legal weight at all or form part of some sort
of "contract" and that all you have to do is post up a sign and this
suddenly invests the sign with magical legal properties.

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 4/25/01 7:49 AM

Do a significant proportion of your subsequent client interviews
involve defending false imprisonment actions?

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/25/01 8:14 AM
Kristen wrote:

> You are not violating his rights in searching his bag

If you check Austlii you will find that even employers do not have
an absolute right to search their employees bags.

> Should you wish to retain the services of my legal firm, please contact me


> and I will be happy to discuss it with you further (at no cost to you).
> Take NOSPAM out of my address to reply.

Is this sort of solicitation legal and ethical?

Bag Search Refusal rob...@yahoo.com 4/25/01 5:48 PM
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:05:54 +0930, "Doggy" <dog_n...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

snip

Do you get people to sign a waiver that they have read and understood
your sign? If not, you have buckleys of making it stick. Do not forget
that there is nowhere stated that people have to be able to read
english

Bag Search Refusal Martin Taylor 4/25/01 7:52 PM
Kristen said..

 Kr> If your premises is registered, and as you say, there are signs
 Kr> clearly making it a condition of entry that bags be checked on the way
 Kr> out, then the customer must present their bag if asked.  If the
 Kr> customer refuses, then the customer can be detained by the security

[snip..]

 Kr> Should you wish to retain the services of my legal firm, please
 Kr> contact me and I will be happy to discuss it with you further (at no
 Kr> cost to you). Take NOSPAM out of my address to reply.

Gee. What country do you live in? Remind me never to visit it.

If, however, you're in Australia, and more particularly, here in
Victoria, you must be one of these single practice lawyers that I've
read about in John Grisham novels. The one in the novel "The Bretheren",
comes to mind...

Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply

Bag Search Refusal Martin Taylor 4/25/01 7:54 PM
Doggy said..

 Do> What I really want to know is; Does the gentleman in the above case
 Do> have the right to refuse to open his bag for us to look in, and in
 Do> doing so, does this give ME the right to request that he not do
 Do> business with us? The next time he comes in the store im sure the same
 Do> thing will happen, he will refuse a bag check and I will have to see
 Do> him.

Pretty well YES to all of the above. If wanted to exercise my 'rights'
I'd politely refuse to allow the store employees to inspect my bag. I'd
then move off. If I was tackled outside of the store, I'd make it clear
that I want to depart. If this is prevented by say, a security person,
and I'm detained, and it's subsequently proved that I didn't shoplift,
I'd then be seeking legal redress.

It's a thin line that stores tread. You are damned if you do, damned if
you don't, given the level of shoplifting in this country.

As far as I'm aware, the "conditions of entry" are no way legally
binding on people that enter the store. Of course, if you want to, you
can prevent them from entering. I s'pose it's similar to the "licence
agreement" that software people have. If you click on "decline" when
asking to agree to the terms, it then stops you installing the software.
However, I'm not sure that when you click on "accept", you are legally
obliged to follow their conditions, etc. particularly if they're not in
consumer legislation.

In any case, for someone who claims to have run a store for 10 years or
more, I'm surprised that you're not up to speed on this part of the law.
I would have thought it would be in a store owner/manager's best
interests to be fully aware of his/her rights and responsibilities.

Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply

Bag Search Refusal Clinton Greer 4/25/01 9:10 PM
BTW: Alina is right about the whole idea of posting signs that negate
consumer protection laws.  But the bag search and refusal of entry are
legislated rights of a business.

"Alina Holgate" <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3AE6D0AE.28058D75@deakin.edu.au...

Bag Search Refusal Clinton Greer 4/25/01 9:10 PM
Sorry - shopowners have a legislated right to search bags carried by
customers providing that they display signs that tell customers.  During a
search, a member of staff may look in the bag but may not touch the bag or
anything in the bag.  If they see items which are beleived to be stolen they
may detain the suspect.  This action is a citizens arrest.  Simply by
denying the customer leave from the premises a citizens arrest is being
executed.  If it is discovered that the person was not stealing from the
store, both the staff member who initiated the arrest and the store will be
liable for charges of false imprisonment.

So, there is a legislated right for stores to search bags - but they cannot
touch anything.  A store has a right of refusal of entry which applies to
all people, including police - a store is just like a house in this respect.
The owner may deny entry to anyone.

My advice is worth what you paid for it.
Clinton Greer


"Alina Holgate" <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3AE6D0AE.28058D75@deakin.edu.au...

Bag Search Refusal Clinton Greer 4/25/01 9:12 PM
Providing the sign is in a conspicuious place and the busines has made a
reasonable attempt to communicate the message they have done all they can.
It is unreasonable to expect a business to post messages in every language a
customer might speak.  Strangely enough those foriegn language customers
manage to negotiate english speaking checkouts and english language product
descriptions.

My advice is worth what you paid for it.
Clinton Greer

<rob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:horeet4h25ejojbnt6flfa28ib5hl5d1lo@4ax.com...

Bag Search Refusal Clinton Greer 4/25/01 9:20 PM
Conditions of entry in most stores are followed by customers as a common
courtesy.  The signs that say no refunds, for example are not illegal but
denying a refund on faulty goods is.

The mention of licence agreements is correct.  If you click 'Accept' you are
bound by the acceptable use policy outlined in the document - although most
of the problems regarding software misuse are related to copyright laws and
treaties, a severe break of the acceptable use policy can result in civil
proceedings.

My advice is worth what you paid for it.
Clinton Greer

"Martin Taylor" <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001feb6@chello.com.au...

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/25/01 9:34 PM
Clinton Greer wrote:

> Sorry - shopowners have a legislated right to search bags carried by
> customers providing that they display signs that tell customers.  During a
> search, a member of staff may look in the bag but may not touch the bag or
> anything in the bag.  If they see items which are beleived to be stolen they
> may detain the suspect.  This action is a citizens arrest.  Simply by
> denying the customer leave from the premises a citizens arrest is being
> executed.  If it is discovered that the person was not stealing from the
> store, both the staff member who initiated the arrest and the store will be
> liable for charges of false imprisonment.

Can you to tell us which legislation covers this?

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 4/25/01 9:42 PM
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:09:35 +1000, "Clinton Greer"
<clg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Sorry - shopowners have a legislated right to search bags carried by
>customers providing that they display signs that tell customers.

Provide a cite for this legislation please, or at least to which state
it applies.

> During a
>search, a member of staff may look in the bag but may not touch the bag or
>anything in the bag.  If they see items which are beleived to be stolen they
>may detain the suspect.  This action is a citizens arrest.  Simply by
>denying the customer leave from the premises a citizens arrest is being
>executed.

The "simply by denying the the customer leave the premises a citizens
arrest is being executed" is wrong.

> If it is discovered that the person was not stealing from the
>store, both the staff member who initiated the arrest and the store will be
>liable for charges of false imprisonment.

Close enough. And that's the problem for store owners.

>So, there is a legislated right for stores to search bags - but they cannot
>touch anything.  A store has a right of refusal of entry which applies to
>all people, including police - a store is just like a house in this respect.
>The owner may deny entry to anyone.

Wrong. Esp. with regard to police.

Bag Search Refusal Martin Taylor 4/25/01 11:20 PM
Alina Holgate said..

 > Should you wish to retain the services of my legal firm, please contact me
 > and I will be happy to discuss it with you further (at no cost to you).
 > Take NOSPAM out of my address to reply.

 AH> Is this sort of solicitation legal and ethical?

I'd say that, given the content in his original message, that it's a
troll.

Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply

Bag Search Refusal Martin Taylor 4/25/01 11:36 PM
rob...@yahoo.com said..

 ro> Do you get people to sign a waiver that they have read and understood
 ro> your sign? If not, you have buckleys of making it stick. Do not forget
 ro> that there is nowhere stated that people have to be able to read
 ro> english

I'm not sure that even that would amount to much, especially if it
contravenes local consumer law.

Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply

Bag Search Refusal Leon Garde 4/26/01 1:10 AM
Alina Holgate (hol...@deakin.edu.au) wrote:
: Kristen wrote:

: > If your premises is registered, and as you say, there are signs clearly
: > making it a condition of entry that bags be checked on the way out, then the
: > customer must present their bag if asked.  If the customer refuses, then the
: > customer can be detained by the security staff of that store.

: Bullshit.

:  Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security staff
: are) have no legal right to search, detain, restrain, encumber, arrest or
: otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or molest other private citizens
: (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).


Can you site any cases which have shown this to be the case ?


:  If they suspect that someone has stolen
: something from the shop the appropriate response is to ring the police
: and report a suspected crime.  They might have the right to refuse
: someone entry to their store but they do not have the right to search
: their bags, anymore than posting a sign saying "a condition of entry to
: this store is that all customers be strip searched by security staff on
: their way out" would give them the legal right to do that.  Even the
: police don't have absolute rights to obtain people's names and
: addresses, search people or haul them into the station, for god's
: sake.  Why do people persist in this dopey notion that signs posted
: up in shops have any legal weight at all or form part of some sort
: of "contract" and that all you have to do is post up a sign and this
: suddenly invests the sign with magical legal properties.

thank you for your rant.
but References to cases will be most interesting.

Bag Search Refusal Richard John Cavell 4/26/01 1:32 AM
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Doggy wrote:

> We have clearly posted "conditions of entry" signs at our entrance,

I've been waiting to have a crack at someone like you.

Listen, you self-righteous idiot, you do *not* have the right to search
anyone's bags without their permission.  What did you think you were going
to do, arrest him?

I'm rather amused at the thought of the arguments I might have with my
'customers' if I posted a sign saying "all young women who come in here
have to give me a blowjob" above my threshold.

> search my bag and I wont let her". I tried to explain the conditions
> of entry to him, but he told me it was illegal for us to look into his
> bag

It certainly is.  If you in any way touch him unlawfully, restrict his
egress, attempt to grab his bag or force him into a search, that's
illegal.  Given that you can't do any of the above, then if push comes to
shove, you can't search his bag without his permission.

> As my store is private property, and we extend an invitation to our
> customers to shop with us,

Wrong.  Your store is a public place , and you have given implied
permission to every person in the country to walk into your store.  You
can refuse that permission, but it's an exclusionary rather than
inclusionary arrangement.

> I DO have a legal right to refuse entry, and to
> ask a customer to leave at any time.

Yes, and yes.

> reason for doing so, and that if they refuse to leave the Police have to
> escort them from the premises.

The Police don't have to do that.  You have the right to use 'reasonable
force'.

> What I really want to know is; Does the gentleman in the above case have the
> right to refuse to open his bag for us to look in

Yes.

> this give ME the right to request that he not do business with us?

Yes.

> Before I go as far as seeking legal advice, I would be interested in the
> opinions of this group (yes even the witty replies from Rod).

This matter is fully elaborated in case law.  There is no need to get
legal advice.  There is some misunderstanding around, thanks to the
self-righteous chest beating of the Retail Association and various large
supermarkets.  And you.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cavell - richar...@mail.com

Newsgroups - Please keep any discussion on the group, and copy your
replies to me via email. (Server problems).  Sending me bulk email
guarantees a nasty response.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Bill Gates: "He has a Napoleonic concept
of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power"
-------------------------------------------------------------

Bag Search Refusal Richard John Cavell 4/26/01 1:38 AM
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Clinton Greer wrote:

> Sorry - shopowners have a legislated right to search bags carried by
> customers providing that they display signs that tell customers.

Alright, Clinton.  We now have a nominee for dickhead statement of the
month. And for once, it's not me.

Go to austlii.edu.au.  Find the link to the relevant legislation.  Post it
here.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cavell - richar...@mail.com

Newsgroups - Please keep any discussion on the group, and copy your
replies to me via email. (Server problems).  Sending me bulk email
guarantees a nasty response.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Bill Gates: "He has a Napoleonic concept
of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power"
-------------------------------------------------------------

Bag Search Refusal Richard John Cavell 4/26/01 1:40 AM
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Clinton Greer wrote:

> It is unreasonable to expect a business to post messages in every language a
> customer might speak.

You might want to find out about running a 'security' carpark if you
think that.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cavell - richar...@mail.com

Newsgroups - Please keep any discussion on the group, and copy your
replies to me via email. (Server problems).  Sending me bulk email
guarantees a nasty response.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Bill Gates: "He has a Napoleonic concept
of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power"
-------------------------------------------------------------

Bag Search Refusal Richard John Cavell 4/26/01 1:40 AM
CONDITION OF READING THIS EMAIL:

Any person who opens this email must forward $5 to Richard Cavell.  This
is a condition of reading this email, and if you fail to follow it, you
are in the wrong.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Kristen wrote:

> If your premises is registered, and as you say, there are signs clearly
> making it a condition of entry that bags be checked on the way out, then the
> customer must present their bag if asked.  If the customer refuses, then the
> customer can be detained by the security staff of that store.

Like Hell they can.

Are you trolling, or what?

There was a case involving Myer where a guy who didn't speak English was
accused of stealing by Myer plainclothes security and 'detained' (ie
arrested).  It turned out he hadn't stolen anything and the security staff
had mistaken one black-skinned fellow for another.

He sued and won hundreds of thousands for unlawful arrest.  Note that they
had arrested him partly on suspicion of theft, but the main reason was
that he refused to open his bag and it was, as Myer called it, a
'condition of entry'.

> station where he WILL be searched.  You are not violating his rights in
> searching his bag, or in having his bag searched by staff or police.

What?  So if he refuses you can steal his bag and search it without his
permission?

> fully aware that if he is asked for his bag on leaving and he refuses to
> present it, he is in the wrong.

What gives you the right to make unilateral moral declarations?

> Should you wish to retain the services of my legal firm, please contact me
> and I will be happy to discuss it with you further (at no cost to you).

Tell me which firm and I'll avoid it.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cavell - richar...@mail.com

Newsgroups - Please keep any discussion on the group, and copy your
replies to me via email. (Server problems).  Sending me bulk email
guarantees a nasty response.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Bill Gates: "He has a Napoleonic concept
of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power"
-------------------------------------------------------------


Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/26/01 2:03 AM

Doggy <dog_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OszF6.13$1B2.4453@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

> I run a large business and today had an "episode" with a
> customer who refused to let us look in his bag. We have clearly
> posted "conditions of entry" signs at our entrance, and have verbal
> reminders over our in-store PA system, regarding the bag checks.

Thats all irrelevant to whether you actually have any 'right' to search
their bag. Its basically just bluff that encourages customers to agree.

> The customer was abusing our register assistant, and she was trying to
> explain that she is obliged to check all bags upon a customer leaving the
> store. I was in another part of the store and heard loud voices, and went
> to investigate. I said hello to the customer, and asked what was going on,
> he replied that "she wants to search my bag and I wont let her". I tried to
> explain the conditions of entry to him, but he told me it was illegal for us
> to look into his bag, and that no way was he going to let us.

He does have an arguable case, particularly
if there are no stolen goods in the bag.

> He also said that the fact we were asking to look into his
> bag meant that we were accusing him of stealing from us.

Thats going a tad far, but so were you when you
claim that you have the right to search all bags just
because you claim that as a condition of entry.

> We moved out into the complex my business resides
> in to continue the discussion. At no time did I yell or
> become abusive. He told me how a "police seargent"
> friend of his had told him that we could not check his bag.

He's right in the sense that if you forcibly search his bag, and you
dont find any stolen goods in it, you are gunna be in rather deep shit.

> At this I was frustrated and simply said "We
> would prefer if you did not shop in our store"

You're certainly welcome to do that. And to refuse him entry in
the future. Obviously its rather easier said than done in practice.

> to this he replied "I will come into your store
> when I want, and I will not let you check my bag".

He's wrong there.

> At this stage I was frustrated and most annoyed this person was
> wasting my time. He then proceeded to tell me the only way we can
> check his bag is to call the Police and have them present at a bag check.

That isnt correct either, particularly if you
are sure there are stolen goods in the bag.

Corse searching the bag in that situation does risk a situation
where its your word against his on what was found in the bag. Its
certainly safer if the cops are there to confirm what was found.

> He also threatened legal action against my business,
> told me I was harrasing him, and that he would go
> to the papers, television and give me a bad name.

He can certainly do the media stuff. They might well buy it too.

> At this point I said goodbye to him and went back to my store.

Which is what he wanted.

> As my store is private property, and we extend an invitation
> to our customers to shop with us, I DO have a legal right to
> refuse entry, and to ask a customer to leave at any time.

Yes. But you dont have the legal right to search all bags.
The most you do is have that right to refuse entry to those
who refuse to allow their bags to be searched.

> I know that I a should not give a reason for
> doing so, and that if they refuse to leave the
> Police have to escort them from the premises.

Thats not right either. But if they arent doing anything more than
just refusing to let you examine their bag, its dangerous to chuck them
out physically yourself. You can use reasonable force tho, legally.

> I have also in the past had court orders taken out on our known
> shop stealing customers to prevent them from entering my store.

> What I really want to know is; Does the gentleman in the above
> case have the right to refuse to open his bag for us to look in,

Yes.

> and in doing so, does this give ME the right
> to request that he not do business with us?

Yes.

> The next time he comes in the store im sure the same thing will
> happen, he will refuse a bag check and I will have to see him.

Its quite likely he wont return, just wont want the hassle.

> This is a very confusing issue,

Yeah, its rather more complicated than it looks.

> and one that I have only come accross once before in 10years,
> considering we get over 4000 people a day through our store,
> these customers represent a minute percentage of total bag checks.

Yeah, most just assume that those prominently displayed 'conditions
of entry' do give you the right to search their bags. They dont.

They're just like the 'no refunds' signs, legally invalid
and pure bluff and arguably misleading and deceptive.

> I am inclined at this stage to simply let the customer have his
> own way and not get his bag checked, simply to save trouble.

Yep, thats certainly the safest approach. Even if you do
everything totally by the book, he may well manage to get
the media interested in covering it if it ends up in a big stoush.

> But what if he is indeed stealing from us, and was trying to call my bluff.

Unfortunately for you thats the risk you take. Same applys
to body searches tho, the worst of the shop thieves use
that approach to minise the risk of getting caught.

The short story is that unless you actually observe the individual
loading up, and are be sure that items can be found, you're taking
a real legal risk in insisting on searching when they wont agree.

You're taking a real legal risk in calling the cops and having them
either observe you search the bag, or search it themselves too.
You have basically defamed the individual if nothing is found.

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/26/01 2:07 AM

Kristen <kristen_babe@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote
in message news:3ae6c8d9@iridium.webone.com.au...

> If your premises is registered,

No relevance.

> and as you say, there are signs clearly making it a
> condition of entry that bags be checked on the way
> out, then the customer must present their bag if asked.

Wrong. They are welcome to refuse.

> If the customer refuses, then the customer can
> be detained by the security staff of that store.

Wrong again. There is no right to 'detain' when
the individual has not done anything illegal.

> Ultimately he can be charged with stealing

Not if no stolen goods are found.

> and the police will escort him to the police
> station where he WILL be searched.

Thats wrong too. The cops arent that stupid.

> You are not violating his rights in searching his bag,
> or in having his bag searched by staff or police.

Wrong again. In spades with body searches.

> On entering your store, your signs and message over the loud
> speaker makes him fully aware that if he is asked for his bag
> on leaving and he refuses to present it, he is in the wrong.

Yes, but thats an entirely separate issue to anyone being able to call
the cops JUST because he refuse to allow the bag to be searched.

THAT act isnt illegal, so you cant call the cops.

The most you can do is tell him to leave the
shop and call the cops if he refuses to leave.

> His babbling about the police friend telling him this and that, and
> that he will run crying to the media, is a bluff in making you back off.

There are plenty who will run snivelling to the media.

> Any newspaper or television program would laugh at his little tale.

How odd that we have seen plenty that didnt.

> Should you wish to retain the services of my legal firm,

No one with any sense would want to with so many obvious errors.

> please contact me and I will be happy to
> discuss it with you further (at no cost to you).


Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/26/01 2:14 AM

Clinton Greer <clg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ae7a028.76b35@nancy.pacific.net.au...

> Conditions of entry in most stores are followed
> by customers as a common courtesy.

They actually comply because they have been bluffed
or dont want to risk being refused entry in future.

> The signs that say no refunds, for example are not illegal

They are illegal. They are misleading and deceptive. They
mislead and decieve the customer on that question of their
legal right to a full refund in a number of specific situations.

> but denying a refund on faulty goods is.

> The mention of licence agreements is correct.

Nope.

> If you click 'Accept' you are bound by the
> acceptable use policy outlined in the document

Wrong again. If you choose to ignore a particular
condition that you know contravenes the consumer
law in this country, you are not bound by that policy.

Just like you arent if you sign a purported agreement that
purports to withdraw any other of your consumer rights.

Or a number of other rights you cant sign away, like natural justice for example.

> - although most of the problems regarding software misuse
> are related to copyright laws and treaties, a severe break
> of the acceptable use policy can result in civil proceedings.

Bullshit.

> My advice is worth what you paid for it.

As always with your 'advice'


> Martin Taylor <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote
>> Doggy said..

> >  Do> What I really want to know is; Does the gentleman in the above case
> >  Do> have the right to refuse to open his bag for us to look in, and in
> >  Do> doing so, does this give ME the right to request that he not do
> >  Do> business with us? The next time he comes in the store im sure the
> same
> >  Do> thing will happen, he will refuse a bag check and I will have to see
> >  Do> him.
> >
> > Pretty well YES to all of the above. If wanted to exercise my 'rights'
> > I'd politely refuse to allow the store employees to inspect my bag. I'd
> > then move off. If I was tackled outside of the store, I'd make it clear
> > that I want to depart. If this is prevented by say, a security person,
> > and I'm detained, and it's subsequently proved that I didn't shoplift,
> > I'd then be seeking legal redress.
> >
> > It's a thin line that stores tread. You are damned if you do, damned if
> > you don't, given the level of shoplifting in this country.
> >
> > As far as I'm aware, the "conditions of entry" are no way legally
> > binding on people that enter the store. Of course, if you want to, you
> > can prevent them from entering. I s'pose it's similar to the "licence
> > agreement" that software people have. If you click on "decline" when
> > asking to agree to the terms, it then stops you installing the software.
> > However, I'm not sure that when you click on "accept", you are legally
> > obliged to follow their conditions, etc. particularly if they're not in
> > consumer legislation.
> >
> > In any case, for someone who claims to have run a store for 10 years or
> > more, I'm surprised that you're not up to speed on this part of the law.
> > I would have thought it would be in a store owner/manager's best
> > interests to be fully aware of his/her rights and responsibilities.
> >
> > Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply
>
>


Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/26/01 2:45 AM

Alina Holgate <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in
message news:3AE6D0AE.28058D75@deakin.edu.au...
> Kristen wrote

>> If your premises is registered, and as you say, there are signs clearly


>> making it a condition of entry that bags be checked on the way out, then
>> the customer must present their bag if asked.  If the customer refuses,

>> then the customer can be detained by the security staff of that store.

> Bullshit.  Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security
> staff are) have no legal right to search, detain, restrain, encumber,
> arrest or otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or molest
> other private citizens (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).

Wrong. Most obviously if the individual has been observed putting
goods in the bag and didnt present them at the checkout.

> If they suspect that someone has stolen something
> from the shop the appropriate response is to ring
> the police and report a suspected crime.

Thats just one of the options they have.

And if the individual pays cash, the cops aint gunna be able to do
anything about the 'report' with just some description of the individual.

> They might have the right to refuse someone entry to their
> store but they do not have the right to search their bags,
> anymore than posting a sign saying "a condition of entry to
> this store is that all customers be strip searched by security
> staff on their way out" would give them the legal right to do that.

You did manage to get that bit right.

> Even the police don't have absolute rights to obtain people's names and
> addresses, search people or haul them into the station, for god's sake.

And that.

> Why do people persist in this dopey notion that signs posted
> up in shops have any legal weight at all or form part of some
> sort of "contract" and that all you have to do is post up a sign
> and this suddenly invests the sign with magical legal properties.

Coz its not a particularly obvious concept.


Bag Search Refusal Doggy 4/26/01 5:38 AM
and anyway, our wonderful customer has indeed returned to my store today,
and for some strange reason was more than happy to have his bag looked into
when asked. I just dont understand it . And the most strange thing of all
"I'm sorry for causing trouble yesterday, I dont know why I did it." are the
words he spoke to me today!!! I guess it takes all sorts!!

>
> > We have clearly posted "conditions of entry" signs at our entrance,
>
> I've been waiting to have a crack at someone like you.

Bag Search Refusal Martin Taylor 4/26/01 6:28 AM
Clinton Greer said..

 CG> Sorry - shopowners have a legislated right to search bags carried by
 CG> customers providing that they display signs that tell customers.

Can you point me to the specific legislation that supports this claim?
In particular, I'm interested in Victorian legislation.

 CG> My advice is worth what you paid for it.

Sounds like it too.

Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply

Bag Search Refusal Martin Taylor 4/26/01 6:30 AM
Clinton Greer said..

 CG> Conditions of entry in most stores are followed by customers as a
 CG> common courtesy.  The signs that say no refunds, for example are not
 CG> illegal but denying a refund on faulty goods is.

A local computer store has a sign saying "no refunds given on opened
software packages due to copywrite (sic) law".

Now, under copyright laws, I don't think that there is any provision
preventing the exchange or refund for faulty software, or software that
will not run on your PC. For example, if the software requires a 3D
card, or perhaps a particular type of processor, and your PC doesn't
have this, you could mount an argument for a refund, particularly if the
packaging doesn't explicitly state this.

Software doesn't avoid the concept of "goods must be suitable for their
intended purpose". Of course, 99 percent of the time, some kid's
purchased a game, burnt a copy of it and is now trying to get his money
back. In legitimate cases, it would be a show of good faith if the PC
dealer offered to look at the customer's computer, free of charge to see
what the problem is, and if he can, to rectify it, subject to reasonable
costs, of course.

Now, I'm not sure how you'd go if you purchased a program only to find
out that it isn't what you want, or that it doesn't suit your needs,
such as an accounting package. It might work on the PC etc. But it
doesn't have what you want. I presume that this would come under the
"fit for intended purpose" clause. Of course, you're going to have a
hard time arguing this with the shop (especially this one that I'm
refering to).

So, what's all this about? That a sign in a store isn't necessarily
binding on customers, or potential customers, particularly if it
contravenes local legislation. Consumer law tends to differ from state
to state, so what I've said here may not apply outside of Victoria.


Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/26/01 6:54 AM
Leon Garde wrote:

> Alina Holgate (hol...@deakin.edu.au) wrote:

> :  Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security staff
> : are) have no legal right to search, detain, restrain, encumber, arrest or
> : otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or molest other private citizens
> : (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).

>thank you for your rant.
>but References to cases will be most interesting.

Despite the fact that it's not up to me to prove a negative -
you can start by having a look at McDonald v. Coles Myer
Limited and Walter Vignoli v. Sydney Harbour Casino.
Substantial damages awarded in both cases against a retail
store and a casino for wrongfully detaining customers.

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 4/26/01 7:15 AM
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 01:04:12 +1100, Alina Holgate
<hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote:

>Leon Garde wrote:
>
>> Alina Holgate (hol...@deakin.edu.au) wrote:
>
>> :  Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security staff
>> : are) have no legal right to search, detain, restrain, encumber, arrest or
>> : otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or molest other private citizens
>> : (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).
>
>>thank you for your rant.
>>but References to cases will be most interesting.
>
>Despite the fact that it's not up to me to prove a negative -
>you can start by having a look at McDonald v. Coles Myer
>Limited

You sure?

Isn't it Myer Stores v Soo?

There's a similar case involving McDonald's.

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/26/01 7:16 AM
Alina Holgate wrote:

Oh, and I forgot to mention that both of these citations make
substantial reference to previous case law.  You often find
that with legal judgements.


Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/26/01 7:32 AM
Richard John Cavell wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Clinton Greer wrote:
>
> > Sorry - shopowners have a legislated right to search bags carried by
> > customers providing that they display signs that tell customers.
>
> Alright, Clinton.  We now have a nominee for dickhead statement of the
> month. And for once, it's not me.

There, there, Richard.  Leon Garde usually says much stupider
things than you do.

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/26/01 7:38 AM
Horace Wachope wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 01:04:12 +1100, Alina Holgate

> >Despite the fact that it's not up to me to prove a negative -


> >you can start by having a look at McDonald v. Coles Myer
> >Limited
>
> You sure?
>
> Isn't it Myer Stores v Soo?
>
> There's a similar case involving McDonald's.

Of course I'm sure.  You think I'm stupid enough to post
without checking austlii?  Obviously Myers v. Soo is
another case that I didn't come across.  McDonald v. Coles
is a laugh riot - an elderly spinster public-servant of impeccable
character who must have reminded the judge of his grandma
or something.  She got aggravated damages because Coles
Myer tried to fight it.  Just proves that it doesn't pay to be rude
to old ladies.

It's at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/nsw/supreme%5fct/unrep61.html?query=%22mcdonald+v+cole+myer+limited%22

Bag Search Refusal Martin Taylor 4/26/01 8:46 AM
Rod Speed said..

 RS> Clinton Greer <clg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

 > Sorry - shopowners have a legislated right to search bags carried
 > by customers providing that they display signs that tell customers.

 RS> Bet you cant actually cite the legislation that
 RS> gives them 'a legislated right' on that sign claim.

In a rare moment of lucidity (just before I pass out from an excess of
Jim Beam and Coke) I wonder if this chap isn't baiting us. If so, he'd
have to take the Troll of the Year Award.


Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/26/01 12:35 PM

Martin Taylor <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote
in message news:00020106@chello.com.au...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Clinton Greer <clg...@hotmail.com> wrote

>>> Sorry - shopowners have a legislated right to search bags carried
>>> by customers providing that they display signs that tell customers.

>> Bet you cant actually cite the legislation that


>> gives them 'a legislated right' on that sign claim.

> In a rare moment of lucidity (just before I pass
> out from an excess of Jim Beam and Coke)

|-)

> I wonder if this chap isn't baiting us.

Much more likely to be just another silly little know
it all kid who in fact knows SFA about the basics.

Its too much of a coincidence that his claims about the law are what
many do believe about that particularly less than clearcut situation.

I had another claim that in this country you cannot
legally defend yourself or your property, with say a
burglar. Its complete crap, but its not hard for dills to
become convinced of that due to the media coverage.

Yes another example of stuff that damned school teachers should be
given a right boot up the arse on, failing to teach the basics on that stuff.

Corse now you lot have been stupid enough to re-elect
the fools that ran your state into the ground so spectacularly,
there's buckleys of getting any action on that now.

> If so, he'd have to take the Troll of the Year Award.

Nar, there are much better trolls around than that even if thats what he is.

My occasional advocacy of a return to gas
chambers and crematoria leaves that for dead |-)


Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/26/01 12:58 PM

Doggy <dog_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mCUF6.22$3T2.4816@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...

> and anyway, our wonderful customer has indeed returned
> to my store today, and for some strange reason was more
> than happy to have his bag looked into when asked. I just
> dont understand it . And the most strange thing of all "I'm
> sorry for causing trouble yesterday, I dont know why I did it."
> are the words he spoke to me today!!! I guess it takes all sorts!!

Presumably he managed to back himself into a corner when you upped
the ante in the original confrontation and had a chance to calm down and
reflect on whether it would be inconvenient to be banned from the store.

That raises the question of whether a more relaxed approach
on the part of the checkout person would have avoided backing
him into the corner in the first place in the original confrontation.
You'll likely never know if you could have managed that yourself
when you approached him when he and the checkout person
were shouting at each other by a different approach.

Very likely it would have been possible, tho not what many could achieve.

There is a lot to be said for the traditional 'the customer is always right'
approach, it really does take the wind out of people's sails very effectively.
Difficult for most to do tho when you are sure you're in the right yourself.

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 4/26/01 4:27 PM
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 01:46:42 +1100, Alina Holgate
<hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote:

>Horace Wachope wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 01:04:12 +1100, Alina Holgate
>
>> >Despite the fact that it's not up to me to prove a negative -
>> >you can start by having a look at McDonald v. Coles Myer
>> >Limited
>>
>> You sure?
>>
>> Isn't it Myer Stores v Soo?
>>
>> There's a similar case involving McDonald's.
>
>Of course I'm sure.  You think I'm stupid enough to post
>without checking austlii?

Sorry. I was stuck in that mode after reading posts from Greer,
Kristen & Garde.

>  Obviously Myers v. Soo is
>another case that I didn't come across.  McDonald v. Coles
>is a laugh riot - an elderly spinster public-servant of impeccable
>character who must have reminded the judge of his grandma
>or something. She got aggravated damages because Coles
>Myer tried to fight it.  Just proves that it doesn't pay to be rude
>to old ladies.
>
>It's at:
>
>http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/nsw/supreme%5fct/unrep61.html?query=%22mcdonald+v+cole+myer+limited%22

Thanks for the link.

Myers Stores v Soo is mentioned in the first para of that judgment.

Guess who is cited? McDonald J :-)

Bag Search Refusal Richard John Cavell 4/26/01 7:05 PM
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Horace Wachope wrote:

> Isn't it Myer Stores v Soo?

Yes.  I think Alina has a few words jumbled up.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cavell - richar...@mail.com

Newsgroups - Please keep any discussion on the group, and copy your
replies to me via email. (Server problems).  Sending me bulk email
guarantees a nasty response.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Bill Gates: "He has a Napoleonic concept
of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power"
-------------------------------------------------------------

Bag Search Refusal Richard John Cavell 4/26/01 7:12 PM
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Alina Holgate wrote:

> another case that I didn't come across.  McDonald v. Coles

Ah, didn't know about that one.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cavell - richar...@mail.com

Newsgroups - Please keep any discussion on the group, and copy your
replies to me via email. (Server problems).  Sending me bulk email
guarantees a nasty response.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Bill Gates: "He has a Napoleonic concept
of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power"
-------------------------------------------------------------


Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 4/26/01 8:22 PM
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:01:36 +1000, Richard John Cavell
<rjca...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Horace Wachope wrote:
>
>> Isn't it Myer Stores v Soo?
>
>Yes.  I think Alina has a few words jumbled up.

Unfortunately not :-)

It seems I did. McDonald J was involved in Soo's case, and I'd always
remembered the case Alina cited as the K-mart case. The non-mention of
K-mart threw me together with the name McDonald.

As Alina said, the facts surrounding the K-mart case really are a
joke. I wonder why Coles Myer went after her so vehemently.

And for that matter, why they thought a little old lady would really
switch price tags in order to save herself some miniscule amount (it
was around $1.00, IIRC). Pensions aren't *that* measly :-)

Bag Search Refusal Mike McBain 4/26/01 11:10 PM
"Doggy" <dog_n...@hotmail.com> writes:

>What I really want to know is; Does the gentleman in the above case have the
>right to refuse to open his bag for us to look in, and in doing so, does
>this give ME the right to request that he not do business with us? The next
>time he comes in the store im sure the same thing will happen, he will
>refuse a bag check and I will have to see him.

1. You don't have the legal right to search anyone's bag. Posting a sign
asserting your right to conduct strip searches would be equally unjustified.

2. You do have the right to deny entrance to your store to any individual,
providing that exlusion is not on the basis on that person being a member
of a defined group (Muslims. homosexuals, people with dark skin, etc.)

[...]
>store, these customers represent a minute percentage of total bag checks.
[...]

Not all of us are sheep. I refuse on principle to allow *my* bag to be
checked. What does get up my nose is when some store security staff don't
understand (1) above, and that they take a grave risk if they try to detain
someone against their will. Stores that are serious about the security of
their stock use serious secuirty measures, not random bag searches.

--
__________________________________      m...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au
           Mike McBain           _)       +61 3 9905 2336
Faculty of Business & Economics (_______________________________________
Monash University - Australia    3168

Bag Search Refusal Alecto 4/27/01 2:24 AM
Doggy wrote:
>
> and anyway, our wonderful customer has indeed returned to my store today,
> and for some strange reason was more than happy to have his bag looked into
> when asked. I just dont understand it . And the most strange thing of all
> "I'm sorry for causing trouble yesterday, I dont know why I did it." are the
> words he spoke to me today!!! I guess it takes all sorts!!

He probably only objects to having his bag searched when he's actually got
something 'hot' in it ,watch him.

Alecto

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/27/01 2:54 AM

Mike McBain <m...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote
in message news:9cb29m$ureq@silas-2.cc.monash.edu.au...
> Doggy <dog_n...@hotmail.com> writes

>> What I really want to know is; Does the gentleman in the
>> above case have the right to refuse to open his bag for us
>> to look in, and in doing so, does this give ME the right to
>> request that he not do business with us? The next time he
>> comes in the store im sure the same thing will happen,
>> he will refuse a bag check and I will have to see him.

> 1. You don't have the legal right to search anyone's bag.

Wrong. Most obviously if you are sure there is stolen stuff in there.

> Posting a sign asserting your right to conduct
> strip searches would be equally unjustified.

You can do that too if you are sure they have stolen stuff on them.

> 2. You do have the right to deny entrance to your store to any individual,
> providing that exlusion is not on the basis on that person being a member
> of a defined group (Muslims. homosexuals, people with dark skin, etc.)

You've mangled that completely, most obviously with the poofters.

>> store, these customers represent a minute percentage of total bag checks.

> Not all of us are sheep.

Yeah, some are silly little uniwankers, like you.

> I refuse on principle to allow *my* bag to be checked.

I refuse on principle to let uniwankers buy stuff in my store.

> What does get up my nose is when some store
> security staff don't understand (1) above,

Because its complete crap.

> and that they take a grave risk if they try to detain someone against their will.

Wrong again if they are sure they have stolen stuff in their bag.

> Stores that are serious about the security of  their stock
> use serious secuirty measures, not random bag searches.

More of your pathetic excuse for bullshit.

> m...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au
>            Mike McBain           _)       +61 3 9905 2336
> Faculty of Business & Economics
> Monash University - Australia    3168

Just another silly little posturing uniwanker that doesnt have a clue to its name.

Cant even manage a viable sig.


Bag Search Refusal Bunnyman 4/27/01 2:06 PM

"Kristen" <kristen_babe@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ae6c8d9@iridium.webone.com.au...
> If your premises is registered, and as you say, there are signs clearly
> making it a condition of entry that bags be checked on the way out, then
the
> customer must present their bag if asked.  If the customer refuses, then
the
> customer can be detained by the security staff of that store.

>they can only use "reasonable force"  they cannot arrest anyone, it's a
special power given only to the police and transit police.

>  Ultimately he
> can be charged with stealing

How can this be? they haven't found anything yet that he/she has stolen ?

>and the police will escort him to the police
> station where he WILL be searched.

Wrong , Wrong , Wrong.. You have NFI  mate,  if they find nothing on him,
then he can have your store/you personally charged for false arrest


>You are not violating his rights in
> searching his bag, or in having his bag searched by staff or police.  On

> entering your store, your signs and message over the loud speaker makes
him
> fully aware that if he is asked for his bag on leaving and he refuses to
> present it, he is in the wrong.

If you find nothing stolen  in his/her bag, then you are violating his/her
rights and you will be sued.


>
> His babbling about the police friend telling him this and that, and that
he
> will run crying to the media, is a bluff in making you back off.  Any

> newspaper or television program would laugh at his little tale.

You have to "reasonable suspicion" that this person has stolen something
before you go demanding searching bags, you as a customer have the right to
refuse
to comply but the store may ask you not to come back and ban you from the
store. you cannot be detained unless the store "reasonably suspects" you
have stolen something. ie they have seen you taking stuff and stuffing it in
your bag.  Refer to Woolworths signs at every checkout..

>
> Should you wish to retain the services of my legal firm, please contact me


> and I will be happy to discuss it with you further (at no cost to you).
> Take NOSPAM out of my address to reply.
>
> K.
>

All his is touting for business and has NFI  about bag searches, listen to
him and you will get yourself involved in a long and drawn out court case
which only benefits you guessed it --the lawyers !!

Bunnyman


Bag Search Refusal Bunnyman 4/27/01 2:07 PM

"Clinton Greer" <clg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ae79ea6.b83fc@nancy.pacific.net.au...
> BTW: Alina is right about the whole idea of posting signs that negate
> consumer protection laws.  But the bag search and refusal of entry are
> legislated rights of a business.

What legislation? Quote it !!!  You have been asked for this previously
Clinton !

Bunnyman


>
> "Alina Holgate" <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3AE6D0AE.28058D75@deakin.edu.au...
> > Kristen wrote:
> >
> > > If your premises is registered, and as you say, there are signs
clearly
> > > making it a condition of entry that bags be checked on the way out,
then
> the
> > > customer must present their bag if asked.  If the customer refuses,
then
> the
> > > customer can be detained by the security staff of that store.
> >
> > Bullshit.  Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security staff

> > are) have no legal right to search, detain, restrain, encumber, arrest
or
> > otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or molest other private
citizens
> > (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).  If they suspect that someone has stolen

> > something from the shop the appropriate response is to ring the police
> > and report a suspected crime.  They might have the right to refuse

> > someone entry to their store but they do not have the right to search
> > their bags, anymore than posting a sign saying "a condition of entry to
> > this store is that all customers be strip searched by security staff on
> > their way out" would give them the legal right to do that.  Even the

> > police don't have absolute rights to obtain people's names and
> > addresses, search people or haul them into the station, for god's
> > sake.  Why do people persist in this dopey notion that signs posted

> > up in shops have any legal weight at all or form part of some sort
> > of "contract" and that all you have to do is post up a sign and this
> > suddenly invests the sign with magical legal properties.
> >
>
>


Bag Search Refusal Bunnyman 4/27/01 2:19 PM
What about blind people ?? they also do their shopping like the rest of us..
does this store also have the sign in braille ?

Bunnyman

"Clinton Greer" <clg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ae79f4c.b9147@nancy.pacific.net.au...
> Providing the sign is in a conspicuious place and the busines has made a
> reasonable attempt to communicate the message they have done all they can.
> It is unreasonable to expect a business to post messages in every language
a
> customer might speak.  Strangely enough those foriegn language customers
> manage to negotiate english speaking checkouts and english language
product
> descriptions.

>
> My advice is worth what you paid for it.
> Clinton Greer
>
> <rob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:horeet4h25ejojbnt6flfa28ib5hl5d1lo@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:05:54 +0930, "Doggy" <dog_n...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> > Do you get people to sign a waiver that they have read and understood
> > your sign? If not, you have buckleys of making it stick. Do not forget
> > that there is nowhere stated that people have to be able to read
> > english
>
>


Bag Search Refusal Bunnyman 4/27/01 2:24 PM

"Clinton Greer" <clg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ae7a028.76b35@nancy.pacific.net.au...
> Conditions of entry in most stores are followed by customers as a common
> courtesy.  The signs that say no refunds, for example are not illegal but

yes they are ..Clinton Greer. read the NSW Dept of Fair Trading
http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ca2565f7000fbc3d/47bd344f145bb25a852567550
069da0d/71fbb616ffabcd284a2567ad001bb061?OpenDocument

"Don't believe everything you read
"No refunds" signs are illegal. If you buy a faulty product and you weren't
aware of the fault at the time of the sale, you can usually return it to the
store and expect either:"

Bunnyman

> denying a refund on faulty goods is.
>
> The mention of licence agreements is correct.  If you click 'Accept' you
are
> bound by the acceptable use policy outlined in the document - although

most
> of the problems regarding software misuse are related to copyright laws
and
> treaties, a severe break of the acceptable use policy can result in civil
> proceedings.
>
> My advice is worth what you paid for it.
> Clinton Greer
>
> "Martin Taylor" <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote in message
> news:0001feb6@chello.com.au...
> > Doggy said..
> >
> >  Do> What I really want to know is; Does the gentleman in the above case
> >  Do> have the right to refuse to open his bag for us to look in, and in
> >  Do> doing so, does this give ME the right to request that he not do
> >  Do> business with us? The next time he comes in the store im sure the
> same
> >  Do> thing will happen, he will refuse a bag check and I will have to
see

> >  Do> him.
> >
> > Pretty well YES to all of the above. If wanted to exercise my 'rights'
> > I'd politely refuse to allow the store employees to inspect my bag. I'd
> > then move off. If I was tackled outside of the store, I'd make it clear
> > that I want to depart. If this is prevented by say, a security person,
> > and I'm detained, and it's subsequently proved that I didn't shoplift,
> > I'd then be seeking legal redress.
> >
> > It's a thin line that stores tread. You are damned if you do, damned if
> > you don't, given the level of shoplifting in this country.
> >
> > As far as I'm aware, the "conditions of entry" are no way legally
> > binding on people that enter the store. Of course, if you want to, you
> > can prevent them from entering. I s'pose it's similar to the "licence
> > agreement" that software people have. If you click on "decline" when
> > asking to agree to the terms, it then stops you installing the software.
> > However, I'm not sure that when you click on "accept", you are legally
> > obliged to follow their conditions, etc. particularly if they're not in
> > consumer legislation.
> >
> > In any case, for someone who claims to have run a store for 10 years or
> > more, I'm surprised that you're not up to speed on this part of the law.
> > I would have thought it would be in a store owner/manager's best
> > interests to be fully aware of his/her rights and responsibilities.
> >
> > Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply
>
>


Bag Search Refusal Alecto 4/27/01 6:50 PM
Bunnyman wrote:
>
> What about blind people ?? they also do their shopping like the rest of us..
> does this store also have the sign in braille ?

No, but the seeing eye dog parking area attendant verbally informs them as they
check in their dog, and also temporally confiscates any long sticks they may be
carrying(as they play havoc with the stock).

Alecto

Bag Search Refusal Richard John Cavell 4/27/01 10:41 PM
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bunnyman wrote:

> >they can only use "reasonable force"  they cannot arrest anyone, it's a
> special power given only to the police and transit police.

Citizen's arrest if you find someone committing an offence (the so-called
smoking gun evidence)

> You have to "reasonable suspicion" that this person has stolen something
> before you go demanding searching bags,

The police need reasonable suspicion to arrest.  A citizen needs far more
than that.  (In Victoria, that is; in QLD there is no citizen's arrest).

> your bag.  Refer to Woolworths signs at every checkout..

Woolworth's signs are totally bogus.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cavell - richar...@mail.com

Newsgroups - Please keep any discussion on the group, and copy your
replies to me via email. (Server problems).  Sending me bulk email
guarantees a nasty response.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Bill Gates: "He has a Napoleonic concept
of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power"
-------------------------------------------------------------

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/27/01 11:16 PM

Richard John Cavell <rjca...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.10.10104281534390.5209-100000@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au...

> The police need reasonable suspicion to
> arrest.  A citizen needs far more than that.

Wrong again.

> (In Victoria, that is; in QLD there is no citizen's arrest).

Wrong again.

Bag Search Refusal Leon Garde 4/28/01 8:36 AM
Horace Wachope (horryw...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 01:46:42 +1100, Alina Holgate
: <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote:

: >Horace Wachope wrote:
: >
: >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 01:04:12 +1100, Alina Holgate
: >
: >> >Despite the fact that it's not up to me to prove a negative -
: >> >you can start by having a look at McDonald v. Coles Myer
: >> >Limited
: >>
: >> You sure?
: >>
: >> Isn't it Myer Stores v Soo?
: >>
: >> There's a similar case involving McDonald's.
: >
: >Of course I'm sure.  You think I'm stupid enough to post
: >without checking austlii?

: Sorry. I was stuck in that mode after reading posts from Greer,
: Kristen & Garde.

Austlii isnt complete.
in fact it may only list a few cases which are outlyers
going against the  prevaling winds.

I refer you to cases not to some silly little academicly usefull database
on the web.

Bag Search Refusal Leon Garde 4/28/01 8:36 AM
Bunnyman (bunn...@bigpond.net.au) wrote:

: "Clinton Greer" <clg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message


: news:3ae79ea6.b83fc@nancy.pacific.net.au...
: > BTW: Alina is right about the whole idea of posting signs that negate
: > consumer protection laws.  But the bag search and refusal of entry are
: > legislated rights of a business.

: What legislation? Quote it !!!  You have been asked for this previously

are you sure you should be demanding legislation ?
what about  merely precedence ; and regulations apply to business
practices, as the government bodies do not pass laws on their own,
but the courts uphold regulations every day.

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 4/28/01 9:32 AM
On 28 Apr 2001 09:30:42 GMT, c892...@pavarotti.newcastle.edu.au (Leon
Garde) wrote:

WHAT CASES????

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 4/28/01 9:32 AM
On 28 Apr 2001 09:25:32 GMT, c892...@pavarotti.newcastle.edu.au (Leon
Garde) wrote:

>Bunnyman (bunn...@bigpond.net.au) wrote:
>
>: "Clinton Greer" <clg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>: news:3ae79ea6.b83fc@nancy.pacific.net.au...
>: > BTW: Alina is right about the whole idea of posting signs that negate
>: > consumer protection laws.  But the bag search and refusal of entry are
>: > legislated rights of a business.
>
>: What legislation? Quote it !!!  You have been asked for this previously
>
>are you sure you should be demanding legislation ?

Yes.

>what about  merely precedence ;

ie case law. Can you provide a cite please?

>and regulations apply to business
>practices, as the government bodies do not pass laws on their own,
>but the courts uphold regulations every day.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Bag Search Refusal Bunnyman 4/28/01 1:10 PM
never seen a "seeing eye dog parking attendant" anywhere near my local
Woolies .. What do they look like ?

Bunnyman

"Alecto" <ale...@goulburn.net.au> wrote in message
news:3AEA2149.4C00A059@goulburn.net.au...

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/28/01 2:34 PM

Leon Garde <c892...@pavarotti.newcastle.edu.au> wrote
in message news:9ce2ac$97h$2@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...

> Bunnyman (bunn...@bigpond.net.au) wrote
>> Clinton Greer <clg...@hotmail.com> wrote

>>> BTW: Alina is right about the whole idea of posting signs


>>> that negate consumer protection laws.  But the bag search
>>> and refusal of entry are legislated rights of a business.

>> What legislation? Quote it !!!  You have been asked for this previously

> are you sure you should be demanding legislation ?

Yep, Greer made that claim about 'legislated rights', stupid. It doesnt exist.

> what about merely precedence ; and regulations apply to
> business practices, as the government bodies do not pass
> laws on their own, but the courts uphold regulations every day.

Pity Greer made that completely stupid claim
about 'legislated rights', stupid. It doesnt exist.

Bag Search Refusal Alecto 4/28/01 4:52 PM
Bunnyman wrote:
>
> never seen a "seeing eye dog parking attendant" anywhere near my local
> Woolies .. What do they look like ?

They wear special camouflage outfits so only the blind can spot them, but you
might be able to see them too if you go down to Woolies blind drunk, in which
case you'll find them just to the left of the pink elephant parking area.

Alecto.

>
> Bunnyman
>
> "Alecto" <ale...@goulburn.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3AEA2149.4C00A059@goulburn.net.au...
> > Bunnyman wrote:
> > >
> > > What about blind people ?? they also do their shopping like the rest of
> us..
> > > does this store also have the sign in braille ?
> >
> > No, but the seeing eye dog parking area attendant verbally informs them as
> they
> > check in their dog, and also temporally confiscates any long sticks they
> may be
> > carrying(as they play havoc with the stock).
> >
> > Alecto

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/28/01 6:24 PM
Leon Garde wrote:

> : >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 01:04:12 +1100, Alina Holgate
> : >
> : >> >Despite the fact that it's not up to me to prove a negative -
> : >> >you can start by having a look at McDonald v. Coles Myer
> : >> >Limited

> Austlii isnt complete.


> in fact it may only list a few cases which are outlyers
> going against the  prevaling winds.

> I refer you to cases not to some silly little academicly usefull database
> on the web.

You asked for cases, I gave you cases.  The fact that I found
them on a website does not negate that they are accurate
reports of case law decisions. If you think that there are
other cases or legislation that demonstrate that shopholders
have a legal right to search bags and detain anybody suspected
of shoplifting then it is up to YOU to provide citations of them.
You called me on the accuracy of my assertions, I responded
with citations to specific cases which supported my assertions.
It's time now for you to either make a substantive contribution
to the debate (i.e. provide citations which demonstrate that my
assertions are incorrect) or shut up.

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/28/01 8:24 PM

Alina Holgate <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in
message news:3AEB6237.E9281900@deakin.edu.au...
> Leon Garde wrote
>> Alina Holgate wrote

>>> you can start by having a look at McDonald v. Coles Myer Limited

>> Austlii isnt complete.
>> in fact it may only list a few cases which are
>> outlyers going against the  prevaling winds.

Thats mangling the story considerably.

>> I refer you to cases not to some silly little
>> academicly usefull database on the web.

> You asked for cases, I gave you cases.

Not one which supported your original assertion that

>>> Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security
>>> staff are) have no right to search, detain, restrain, encumber,

>>> arrest or otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or
>>> molest other private citizens (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).

> The fact that I found them on a website does not negate that they


> are accurate reports of case law decisions. If you think that there
> are other cases or legislation that demonstrate that shopholders
> have a legal right to search bags and detain anybody suspected
> of shoplifting then it is up to YOU to provide citations of them.

Wrong. The problem with your approach is that it CANT
produce examples where someone has been observed
shop stealing, has been apprehended, had their bag
searched by the shop employee, and the cops called.
Because austlii just doesnt have that level of petty crime listed.

What you cited is examples of something completely different,
someone who has been FALSELY accused of shop stealing
who has chosen to do the store over thru the courts.

That says nothing useful what so ever about your original
assertion that a shop has no legal right to search bags.
That is just plain wrong. They just better be sure that
there are stolen articles in that bag when they do that.

And they are taking a considerable risk if the owner of the bag
refuses to allow it to be searched, and they search it anyway.
Still fine if stolen items are found inside it, but they can be in
rather deep shit if there turns out to be no stolen items in it and
the owner of the bag chooses to do them over thru the courts.

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/28/01 11:34 PM
Rod Speed wrote:

> Alina Holgate <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in
> message news:3AEB6237.E9281900@deakin.edu.au...

> > You asked for cases, I gave you cases.


>
> Not one which supported your original assertion that
>
> >>> Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security
> >>> staff are) have no right to search, detain, restrain, encumber,
> >>> arrest or otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or
> >>> molest other private citizens (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).

I reckon both of the cases I cited give good examples
where private citizens have been searched, detained,
restrained, encumbered, arrested or otherwise assaulted,
had their privacy invaded and been molested by commercial
organisations (one a supermarket, the other a casino).
If it were the case that these organisations had a legal or
common law right to do all this on suspicion of stealing
then I presume the judges would not have decided to
award thousands of dollars damages against these
organisations for false imprisonment.

> > The fact that I found them on a website does not negate that they
> > are accurate reports of case law decisions. If you think that there
> > are other cases or legislation that demonstrate that shopholders
> > have a legal right to search bags and detain anybody suspected
> > of shoplifting then it is up to YOU to provide citations of them.
>
> Wrong. The problem with your approach is that it CANT
> produce examples where someone has been observed
> shop stealing, has been apprehended, had their bag
> searched by the shop employee, and the cops called.
> Because austlii just doesnt have that level of petty crime listed.

Presumably the sort of people caught shoplifting are not also
the sort of people who bring damages claims.  The fact that,
in practise, no-one has sought damages against a shop when
they have been found to be shoplifting does not then mean that
shops therefore have a "legal right" to search and detain, as a
number of posters have asserted.  As I pointed out previously,
even the police do not have an absolute "legal right" to search
and detain people - do shopkeepers imagine they are somehow
in a superior position to the police?

I would still loftily point out that I'm the only person so far
who has attempted to back their arguments with any reference
to legal decisions at all.  Other posters have made explicit
assertions that shopkeepers have "legislated" or "legal"
"rights" to search and detain - so where's the legislation or
case law to back them up?  Even industrial law decisions
which I didn't bother to cite make it clear that employers
can only search employees bags if the employee has signed
an employment contract that specifically makes that a condition
of employment - otherwise they can only search employees
bags with their permission.  And no I'm not going to go back
and dig out those particular decisions - someone else can
get off their lazy arse and do some work for a change,
instead of making a thirty-second effort to write a post
whining that cases on austlii aren't the same as "real" cases.

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/29/01 2:58 AM

Alina Holgate <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in
message news:3AEBAB0E.2FD8C212@deakin.edu.au...

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Alina Holgate <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote

>>> You asked for cases, I gave you cases.

>> Not one which supported your original assertion that

>>>>> Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security
>>>>> staff are) have no right to search, detain, restrain, encumber,
>>>>> arrest or otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or
>>>>> molest other private citizens (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).

> I reckon both of the cases I cited give good examples
> where private citizens have been searched, detained,
> restrained, encumbered, arrested or otherwise assaulted,
> had their privacy invaded and been molested by commercial
> organisations (one a supermarket, the other a casino).

Pity about the very large number who have done various crimes
like shop stealing, who have had their bags searched, and who
have been frog marched off to the cop shop when stolen goods
have been found in their bags and who havent even managed to
get their prosecution before a magistrate for their crimes tossed out.

> If it were the case that these organisations had a legal
> or common law right to do all this on suspicion of stealing
> then I presume the judges would not have decided to
> award thousands of dollars damages against these
> organisations for false imprisonment.

Maybe you really are so stupid that you cant manage to distinguish
between those who have been FALSELY ACCUSED of criminal
activity and who have managed to get redress thru the courts and the
MUCH larger number of criminals who have been observed engaging
in criminal activity in shops, who have been frog marched down to the
cop shop after someone has searched their bag and has discovered
stolen goods in that bag, and have been delt with by a magistrate.

You wont find ANY of those in austlii.

>>> The fact that I found them on a website does not negate that they
>>> are accurate reports of case law decisions. If you think that there
>>> are other cases or legislation that demonstrate that shopholders
>>> have a legal right to search bags and detain anybody suspected
>>> of shoplifting then it is up to YOU to provide citations of them.

>> Wrong. The problem with your approach is that it CANT
>> produce examples where someone has been observed
>> shop stealing, has been apprehended, had their bag
>> searched by the shop employee, and the cops called.
>> Because austlii just doesnt have that level of petty crime listed.

> Presumably the sort of people caught shoplifting are
> not also the sort of people who bring damages claims.

Obviously not. There is just the tiny matter of whether they have actually
engaged in any criminal activity before someone searches their bag and
that criminal activity is proven beyond doubt when that happens.

> The fact that, in practise, no-one has sought damages against
> a shop when they have been found to be shoplifting does not
> then mean that shops therefore have a "legal right" to search
> and detain, as a number of posters have asserted.

Wrong. If shops do not have the legal right to search bags, some
crim would have sought damages. Just like there have been with
complete arsehole crims who have taken legal action when they
have tripped over a coffee table in the dark when they have been
wandering around places in the dark when robbing it.

> As I pointed out previously, even the police do not have
> an absolute "legal right" to search and detain people

Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
Like having observed the criminal putting stolen goods in the
bag and not presenting them at the checkout for payment.

> - do shopkeepers imagine they are somehow
> in a superior position to the police?

Nope, its the SAME position, evidence of criminal activity.

> I would still loftily point out that I'm the only person
> so far who has attempted to back their arguments
> with any reference to legal decisions at all.

Soorree, you aint gunna see those in austlii when some criminal
steals from a shop, has its bag searched and is frog marched off
to a magistrate's court and is convicted of stealing from a shop.

Even you should be able to work that one out.

Other posters have made explicit
> assertions that shopkeepers have "legislated" or "legal"
> "rights" to search and detain - so where's the legislation or
> case law to back them up?

Yes, Greer made a complete fool of himself there.

YOU have made a complete fool of yourself when you proclaimed that

>>>>> Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security
>>>>> staff are) have no right to search, detain, restrain, encumber,
>>>>> arrest or otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or
>>>>> molest other private citizens (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).

when in fact countless shop thieves have been apprehended
in shops with stolen items in their bag and have been from
marched off to the cop shop and later before a magistrate
and have received a penality for their criminal activity.

> Even industrial law decisions which I didn't bother to cite make
> it clear that employers can only search employees bags if the
> employee has signed an employment contract that specifically
> makes that a condition of employment - otherwise they can
> only search employees bags with their permission.

Maybe you really are so stupid that you cant manage to work out
the difference between searching a bag when its certain that there
are stolen items in that bag and when the bag is searched without
any evidence that there is anything stolen in that bag before the search.

> And no I'm not going to go back and dig out those
> particular decisions - someone else can get off their
> lazy arse and do some work for a change, instead of
> making a thirty-second effort to write a post whining
> that cases on austlii aren't the same as "real" cases.

Try finding a SINGLE cite from austlii where someone has had
their bad searched AND STOLEN GOODS WERE FOUND IN
THE BAG, who has ever had any damages award in their favor.


Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/29/01 4:44 AM
Rod Speed wrote:

> Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
> WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

That was not the topic of the thread.  Doggy wanted to
know whether he had a legal right to demand bag searches
AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE *regardless of whether
there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing*.  Read the
original post.  His post made it clear that the customer had
simply refused to have their bag searched - not that there
was any suspicion that the customer had stolen anything.
I think even someone as thick-headed as you will agree that
the answer to that question is: shopkeepers do not have a
"legal right" to search a customer's bag just because they feel
like it or they've decided it's their bloody shop's policy - if they
do they are likely to open themselves up to a damages claim.
Then the likes of Kristen and Greer jumped in making explicit
statements that shopkeepers had a "legislated" and "legal" "right"
not only to search the bags of anyone they fucking felt like who
walked into their shop but also to hold people against their will.
The cases I cited make it perfectly clear that this is not the case.

Even someone as stupid as you should realise that there is a
difference between what may happen in practice and what may
constitute a "legal right".  If a shopkeeper claims that they have
a "legal right" to search bags, that is, that any random customer
is legally obliged to submit to a bag search under penalty of
some sort of legal sanction, then that is just plain wrong.  Even
employees are not legally obliged to submit to bag searches
unless it is part of their conditions of employment.  Even someone
as balding, old, ugly and short-sighted as you should be able to
understand the principle of what constitutes a "legal right".

> Try finding a SINGLE cite from austlii where someone has had
> their bad searched AND STOLEN GOODS WERE FOUND IN
> THE BAG, who has ever had any damages award in their favor.

You try finding it.

Oh, Rod.  Take me!

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/29/01 5:30 AM
Rod Speed wrote:

> Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
> WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

That was not the topic of the thread.  Doggy wanted to


know whether he had a legal right to demand bag searches
AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE - *regardless* of whether
there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing.  Read the

original post.  His post made it clear that the customer had
simply refused to have their bag searched - not that there
was any suspicion that the customer had stolen anything.
I think even someone as thick-headed as you will agree that
the answer to that question is: shopkeepers do not have a
"legal right" to search a customer's bag just because they feel
like it or they've decided it's their bloody shop's policy - if they
do they are likely to open themselves up to a damages claim.
Then the likes of Kristen and Greer jumped in making explicit
statements that shopkeepers had a "legislated" and "legal" "right"
not only to search the bags of anyone they fucking felt like who
walked into their shop but also to hold people against their will.
The cases I cited make it perfectly clear that this is not the case.

Even someone as stupid as you should realise that there is a
difference between a common law arrest and what may
constitute a "legal right" to conduct random bag searches.  If
a shopkeeper claims that they have a "legal right" to search bags,

that is, that any random customer is legally obliged to submit to
a bag search under penalty of some sort of legal sanction, then
that is just plain wrong.  Even employees are not legally obliged
to submit to bag searches unless it is part of their conditions of
employment.  Even someone as balding, old, ugly and short-sighted
as you should be able to understand the principle of what

constitutes a "legal right".

> Try finding a SINGLE cite from austlii where someone has had


> their bad searched AND STOLEN GOODS WERE FOUND IN
> THE BAG, who has ever had any damages award in their favor.

You try finding it.  For some reason you're talking about
common law arrest when everyone else is talking about
whether shopkeepers are legally mandated to conduct
random bag searches of the general populace.  Even someone
as willfully obtuse as you should be able to tell the difference.

Oh, Rod.  Take me!

Bag Search Refusal Dave Proctor 4/29/01 5:42 AM
"Alina Holgate" <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3AEBFE60.285623E1@deakin.edu.au...

> Rod Speed wrote:

[...snipped...]

> Even someone as balding, old, ugly and short-sighted
> as you should be able to understand the principle of what
> constitutes a "legal right".

Strange, this is exactly the image I have of Rod - until he can provide a
JPG to counter this, it will have to persist. Although, my image or pRod
includes a fag hanging out of the mouth, since I have him as a chain-smoker.

Of course, none of this is probably true, but it will have to persist until
proven otherwise.

Dave


Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/29/01 6:24 AM
Dave Proctor wrote:

In your internet travels did you ever come across posts by Uncle
Brian of Perth?  He got around the newsgroups quite a bit and I
think he might have posted to aus.legal on occasion.  He was a
curmudgeonly fart (but much wittier and more laid-back than our
Rod).  Anyway, I read an obituary of him written by his son on
alt.revenge which included a picture of him and he looked EXACTLY
the way I had pictured him.  It was uncanny.

In reality I'm sure Rod looks just like Jamie Durie, and if he does,
I'm even prepared to put up with his bibulous rantings.


Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/29/01 3:08 PM

Alina Holgate <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in message news:3AEBF34B.56D30FD3@deakin.edu.au...
> Rod Speed wrote

>> Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
>> WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

> That was not the topic of the thread.

Wrong. YOU were stupid enough to claim that

>>>>> Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security
>>>>> staff are) have no right to search, detain, restrain, encumber,
>>>>> arrest or otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or
>>>>> molest other private citizens (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).

What was being discussed in this subthread was that stupid
assertion of yours which is just plain wrong. Most obviously
where the person searching the bag has observed stolen
items being put in that bag and not presented at the checkout.

An employee of the store has every right to search the bag
in THAT situation, whatever you claim. And you havent manage
to present a SINGLE cite from austlii that says otherwise.

> Doggy wanted to know whether he had a legal right to demand
> bag searches AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE *regardless of
> whether there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing*.  Read
> the original post.  His post made it clear that the customer had
> simply refused to have their bag searched - not that there
> was any suspicion that the customer had stolen anything.

All completely and utterly irrelevant when THIS SUBTHREAD is
discussing your completely stupid assertion quoted again about.

> I think even someone as thick-headed as you will agree that
> the answer to that question is: shopkeepers do not have a
> "legal right" to search a customer's bag just because they feel
> like it or they've decided it's their bloody shop's policy - if they
> do they are likely to open themselves up to a damages claim.

Thats nothing like that stupid assertion you made, quoted yet again.
Squirm as desperately as you like, you're fooling absolutely no one.

> Then the likes of Kristen and Greer jumped in making explicit
> statements that shopkeepers had a "legislated" and "legal" "right"
> not only to search the bags of anyone they fucking felt like who
> walked into their shop but also to hold people against their will.
> The cases I cited make it perfectly clear that this is not the case.

Yes, but you went FAR too far in that stupid assertion that

>>>>> Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security
>>>>> staff are) have no right to search, detain, restrain, encumber,
>>>>> arrest or otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or
>>>>> molest other private citizens (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).

Private citizens DO in fact have the right to search bags
when they are sure that there are stolen goods in them
and they have not been presented at the checkout. AND they
are welcome to detain the individual till the cops show up too.

You havent managed to cite a SINGLE thing from
austlii that says otherwise in THAT situation.

> Even someone as stupid as you should realise that
> there is a difference between what may happen in
> practice and what may constitute a "legal right".

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to grasp that if there
was no legal right to search the bag when its know that there are stolen
goods in that bag, and ensure that the thief stays on the premises until
the cops show up, you'd be able to find them in austlii where the case
against the thief has been tossed out by the magistrate JUST because
the bag was searched when the thief refused to allow that.

> If a shopkeeper claims that they have a "legal right" to
> search bags, that is, that any random customer is legally
> obliged to submit to a bag search under penalty of some
> sort of legal sanction, then that is just plain wrong.

Yes. But that does NOT mean that they dont have the legal right
to search a bag when they KNOW that its got stolen items in it.

> Even employees are not legally obliged to submit to bag searches
> unless it is part of their conditions of employment.  Even someone
> as balding, old, ugly and short-sighted as you should be able to
> understand the principle of what constitutes a "legal right".

Even you should be able to bullshit better than that Holgate.

>> Try finding a SINGLE cite from austlii where someone has had
>> their bad searched AND STOLEN GOODS WERE FOUND IN
>> THE BAG, who has ever had any damages award in their favor.

> You try finding it.

> Oh, Rod.  Take me!

Even you should be able to bullshit better than that Holgate.

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/29/01 6:40 PM
Rod Speed wrote:

> Wrong. YOU were stupid enough to claim that
>
> >>>>> Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security
> >>>>> staff are) have no right to search, detain, restrain, encumber,
> >>>>> arrest or otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or
> >>>>> molest other private citizens (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).

Allright.  I'll modify the above to include the sentence "except
where the private citizen is clearly in the act of committing a
crime".  Happy now?

> > Oh, Rod.  Take me!
>
> Even you should be able to bullshit better than that Holgate.

Don't tempt me.


Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/29/01 9:12 PM
Rod Speed wrote:

> Always happy to rub your nose in your complete stupiditys, anytime.

Would that be stupidities you meant?


Bag Search Refusal johnson 4/30/01 4:12 AM
What a pack of legal fools. This debate has raged for around a week and
all and sundry have missed the major points.

Alina Holgate wrote:
>
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> > Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
> > WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
>
> That was not the topic of the thread.  Doggy wanted to
> know whether he had a legal right to demand bag searches
> AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE *regardless of whether
> there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing*.
Lets go through this slowly and in a logical legal manner, not jumping
from one fact situation to another and wild legal statements.
First.
The shopkeeper has what you call a "right' to search the bag if there is
a sign at the entrance and the shopper then accepts the conditions of
the contract of entry by entering.
The shopper has entered into an executory contract whereby the shopper
agrees to present the bag at exit.
The shopper then at exit refuses to present the bag.
Here everyone parts company with legal logic and goes off on crazy
tangents about forced searches etc etc.
The simple legal fact is that the shopper now is in breach of contract.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The normal rules regarding breach of contract apply.
The shopkeeper would have to have a court order the shopper to comply
with the terms of the contract and/ or pay damages. Exactly as in any
other contractual situation.
Why you all leap to this stupidity about the shopkeeper making the
shopper comply with the terms of the contract by force defies
comprehension.

I thought there was only supposed to be one fool born every minute, this
thread puts the lie to that.

As for the other stupidities, Mr Cavell claims there is a "citizens
arrest', read the law please.

Then there is Mr Speed who claims that if evidence of shoplifting is
found in the shoppers bag by an unathorised search then that shopper
should not be convicted. Clearly Mr Speed has obtained his degree from
watching LA law and Perry Mason, he should move across the water where
his knowledge(?) is more relevant.

Bag Search Refusal johnson 4/30/01 4:46 AM
This debate has raged for around a week and
all and sundry have missed the major point.


Bag Search Refusal johnson 4/30/01 4:48 AM
This debate has raged for around a week and
all and sundry have missed the major point.
Alina Holgate wrote:
>
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> > Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
> > WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
>
> That was not the topic of the thread.  Doggy wanted to
> know whether he had a legal right to demand bag searches
> AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE *regardless of whether
> there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing*.

Lets go through this slowly and in a logical legal manner, not jumping
from one fact situation to another and wild legal statements.
First.
The shopkeeper has what you call a "right' to inspect the bag if there

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 4/30/01 6:50 AM
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:42:32 +1000, johnson <joh...@primus.com>
wrote:

>This debate has raged for around a week and
>all and sundry have missed the major point.
>Alina Holgate wrote:
>>
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>> > Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
>> > WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
>>
>> That was not the topic of the thread.  Doggy wanted to
>> know whether he had a legal right to demand bag searches
>> AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE *regardless of whether
>> there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing*.
>
>Lets go through this slowly and in a logical legal manner, not jumping
>from one fact situation to another and wild legal statements.
>First.
>The shopkeeper has what you call a "right' to inspect the bag if there
>is
>a sign at the entrance and the shopper then accepts the conditions of
>the contract of entry by entering.

Hardly that simple.

>The shopper has entered into an executory contract whereby the shopper
>agrees to present the bag at exit.
>The shopper then at exit refuses to present the bag.
>Here everyone parts company with legal logic and goes off on crazy
>tangents about forced searches etc etc.
>The simple legal fact is that the shopper now is in breach of contract.
>Nothing more, nothing less.
>The normal rules regarding breach of contract apply.

Which are completely useless to the shopowner in almost all
circumstances.

>The shopkeeper would have to have a court order the shopper to comply
>with the terms of the contract and/ or pay damages. Exactly as in any
>other contractual situation.
>Why you all leap to this stupidity about the shopkeeper making the
>shopper comply with the terms of the contract by force defies
>comprehension.

Because it's a hell of a lot more likely that a shopkeeper would try
to use force than bring an action alleging breach of contract.

And no-one's advocating the use of force to "make the shopper comply"
with any *contract*. Self-help in the form of reasonable force is a
remedy to trespass.

>I thought there was only supposed to be one fool born every minute, this
>thread puts the lie to that.

And it looks like there's a myopic fool at least once a thread.

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/30/01 1:56 PM

johnson <joh...@primus.com> wrote in message news:3AED4FA8.D187EEEC@primus.com...

> This debate has raged for around a week and
> all and sundry have missed the major point.

Wrong.

> Alina Holgate wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:

>>> Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
>>> WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

>> That was not the topic of the thread.  Doggy wanted
>> to know whether he had a legal right to demand bag
>> searches AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE *regardless of
>> whether there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing*.

> Lets go through this slowly and in a logical legal manner, not jumping
> from one fact situation to another and wild legal statements.

You have in fact done just that yourself. So you can stop posturing now.

> First.
> The shopkeeper has what you call a "right' to inspect the
> bag if there is a sign at the entrance and the shopper then
> accepts the conditions of the contract of entry by entering.

Wrong. Just because its on some sign says NOTHING useful about
whether the shopkeeper has the legal right to do whats on the sign.

Consider the situation where the sign claims that you have agreed to
cavity searches if you cant manage to work the basics out for yourself.

A much more common example the 'no refund' signs.
Those have absolutely NO effect on the customer's
right to a refund in a number of specific circumstances.

> The shopper has entered into an executory contract
> whereby the shopper agrees to present the bag at exit.

Wrong. Just like they havent with a 'no refunds' sign.

> The shopper then at exit refuses to present the bag.
> Here everyone parts company with legal logic and goes
> off on crazy tangents about forced searches etc etc.

Wrong. What has been discussed is what the
shopkeeper has the legal right to do in that situation.

> The simple legal fact is that the shopper now is in breach of contract.
> Nothing more, nothing less.

Wrong. Just like its wrong with the 'no refund' signs.

> The normal rules regarding breach of contract apply.

Wrong. Just like its wrong with the 'no refund' signs.

> The shopkeeper would have to have a court order the shopper
> to comply with the terms of the contract and/ or pay damages.
> Exactly as in any other contractual situation.

Wrong. Just like its wrong with the 'no refund' signs.

> Why you all leap to this stupidity about the shopkeeper
> making the shopper comply with the terms of the
> contract by force defies comprehension.

You comprehension problems and your complete
pig ignorance of the law are your problem.

> I thought there was only supposed to be one fool
> born every minute, this thread puts the lie to that.

Certainly does, you've just made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself.

Bag Search Refusal johnson 4/30/01 2:56 PM
Horace Wachope wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:42:32 +1000, johnson <joh...@primus.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This debate has raged for around a week and
> >all and sundry have missed the major point.
> >Alina Holgate wrote:
> >>
> >> Rod Speed wrote:
> >>
> >> > Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
> >> > WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
> >>
> >> That was not the topic of the thread.  Doggy wanted to
> >> know whether he had a legal right to demand bag searches
> >> AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE *regardless of whether
> >> there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing*.
> >
> >Lets go through this slowly and in a logical legal manner, not jumping
> >from one fact situation to another and wild legal statements.
> >First.
> >The shopkeeper has what you call a "right' to inspect the bag if there
> >is
> >a sign at the entrance and the shopper then accepts the conditions of
> >the contract of entry by entering.
>
> Hardly that simple.
Exactly that simple
Think it through leaglly.
Are all the element required to form a contract present?  Yes
Are there any vitiating elements ? No
Thus it is that simple.
Stop wasting time here, go away, learn the elements of contract, then
come back.

>
> >The shopper has entered into an executory contract whereby the shopper
> >agrees to present the bag at exit.
> >The shopper then at exit refuses to present the bag.
> >Here everyone parts company with legal logic and goes off on crazy
> >tangents about forced searches etc etc.
> >The simple legal fact is that the shopper now is in breach of contract.
> >Nothing more, nothing less.
> >The normal rules regarding breach of contract apply.
>
> Which are completely useless to the shopowner in almost all
> circumstances.
Irelevant to what the law actually is.
You are discussing facts here, I am explaining law.
There is a difference, get someone to explain it to you.

>
> >The shopkeeper would have to have a court order the shopper to comply
> >with the terms of the contract and/ or pay damages. Exactly as in any
> >other contractual situation.
> >Why you all leap to this stupidity about the shopkeeper making the
> >shopper comply with the terms of the contract by force defies
> >comprehension.
>
> Because it's a hell of a lot more likely that a shopkeeper would try
> to use force than bring an action alleging breach of contract.

Facts not law again.
There is a difference.


>
> And no-one's advocating the use of force to "make the shopper comply"
> with any *contract*. Self-help in the form of reasonable force is a
> remedy to trespass.
Trespass ???
Where did you find this trespass that the shopkeeper would use self help
for a remedy.??

>
> >I thought there was only supposed to be one fool born every minute, this
> >thread puts the lie to that.
>
> And it looks like there's a myopic fool at least once a thread.

Bag Search Refusal johnson 4/30/01 3:10 PM
Rod Speed wrote:
>
> johnson <joh...@primus.com> wrote in message news:3AED4FA8.D187EEEC@primus.com...
>
> > This debate has raged for around a week and
> > all and sundry have missed the major point.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > Alina Holgate wrote:
> >> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> >>> Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
> >>> WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
>
> >> That was not the topic of the thread.  Doggy wanted
> >> to know whether he had a legal right to demand bag
> >> searches AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE *regardless of
> >> whether there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing*.
>
> > Lets go through this slowly and in a logical legal manner, not jumping
> > from one fact situation to another and wild legal statements.
>
> You have in fact done just that yourself. So you can stop posturing now.
>
> > First.
> > The shopkeeper has what you call a "right' to inspect the
> > bag if there is a sign at the entrance and the shopper then
> > accepts the conditions of the contract of entry by entering.
>
> Wrong. Just because its on some sign says NOTHING useful about
> whether the shopkeeper has the legal right to do whats on the sign.
My statement is legally correct, and indeed covers your point.
Think it through, slowly perhaps. It may be too subtle for you, Mr
Wachope may care to explain.

>
> Consider the situation where the sign claims that you have agreed to
> cavity searches if you cant manage to work the basics out for yourself.

Just jumping from one fact situation to another.
Good for novelists but not for lawyers.


 
> A much more common example the 'no refund' signs.
> Those have absolutely NO effect on the customer's
> right to a refund in a number of specific circumstances.
Why is this so?
Research the "no refund' signs and find out why they have limited
effect.
When you find out then you will understand why it is totally irrelevant
here.
This point demonstrates how your lack of understanding of how to apply
the law and this in turn causes you to become confused when confronted
with similar factual situations
>
> > The shopper has entered into an executory contract
> > whereby the shopper agrees to present the bag at exit.
>
> Wrong. Just like they havent with a 'no refunds' sign.
Correct, and the second points irrelevance shows no concept of
application
of legal principles.

>
> > The shopper then at exit refuses to present the bag.
> > Here everyone parts company with legal logic and goes
> > off on crazy tangents about forced searches etc etc.
>
> Wrong. What has been discussed is what the
> shopkeeper has the legal right to do in that situation.
>
> > The simple legal fact is that the shopper now is in breach of contract.
> > Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Wrong. Just like its wrong with the 'no refund' signs.
Correct, and the second points irrelevance shows no concept of
application
of legal principles.

> > The normal rules regarding breach of contract apply.
>
> Wrong. Just like its wrong with the 'no refund' signs.
Correct, learn basic contract law, your stupidity is showing.

>
> > The shopkeeper would have to have a court order the shopper
> > to comply with the terms of the contract and/ or pay damages.
> > Exactly as in any other contractual situation.
>
> Wrong. Just like its wrong with the 'no refund' signs.
Correct, learn basic contract law, your stupidity is showing.

>
> > Why you all leap to this stupidity about the shopkeeper
> > making the shopper comply with the terms of the
> > contract by force defies comprehension.
>
> You comprehension problems and your complete
> pig ignorance of the law are your problem.
Perhaps you could explain some law, not just go off on a your frolics
about wildly different fact situations.
For example explain your concept of how the "no refund" signs have the
same legal ramifications as the entry signs discussed, include
references as to the operation of the TPA and state consumer law in both
circumstances.
I expect no reply as you patently have not the mental capacity to
discuss law, ranting about factual situations is your limit.

>
> > I thought there was only supposed to be one fool
> > born every minute, this thread puts the lie to that.
>
> Certainly does, you've just made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself.

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 4/30/01 3:46 PM

johnson <joh...@primus.com> wrote in message news:3AEDE1D4.E884C023@primus.com...

> Rod Speed wrote
>> johnson <joh...@primus.com> wrote

>>> This debate has raged for around a week and


>>> all and sundry have missed the major point.

>> Wrong.

>>> Alina Holgate wrote:
>>>> Rod Speed wrote:

>>>>> Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
>>>>> WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

>>>> That was not the topic of the thread.  Doggy wanted
>>>> to know whether he had a legal right to demand bag
>>>> searches AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE *regardless of
>>>> whether there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing*.

>>> Lets go through this slowly and in a logical legal manner, not jumping
>>> from one fact situation to another and wild legal statements.

>> You have in fact done just that yourself. So you can stop posturing now.

>>> First.
>>> The shopkeeper has what you call a "right' to inspect the
>>> bag if there is a sign at the entrance and the shopper then
>>> accepts the conditions of the contract of entry by entering.

>> Wrong. Just because its on some sign says NOTHING useful about
>> whether the shopkeeper has the legal right to do whats on the sign.

> My statement is legally correct,

Wrong.

> and indeed covers your point.

Wrong again.

> Think it through, slowly perhaps. It may be too
> subtle for you, Mr Wachope may care to explain.

Even you should be able to wank better than that.

>> Consider the situation where the sign claims that you have agreed to
>> cavity searches if you cant manage to work the basics out for yourself.

> Just jumping from one fact situation to another.

SAME situation. No shopkeeper gets to do bag searches either
just because they have a sign up saying that thats a condition of entry.

> Good for novelists but not for lawyers.

Even you should be able to wank better than that.

>> A much more common example the 'no refund' signs.
>> Those have absolutely NO effect on the customer's
>> right to a refund in a number of specific circumstances.

> Why is this so?

Coz the law says that the customer is entitled to a refund
in a number of situations, goods not of merchantable quality,
goods not fit for purpose, goods not matching the sample etc.

No 'sign' can take that right away.

> Research the "no refund' signs

No need, read the legislation and the summarys that are on a number
of the govt operation web sites on that particular issue that are there
to assist fools like you who cant manage to grasp the legal issues.

> and find out why they have limited effect.

Precisely the same reason that the bag search signs have limited effect.

> When you find out then you will understand why it is totally irrelevant here.

Even you should be able to wank better than that.

> This point demonstrates how your lack of understanding of
> how to apply the law and this in turn causes you to become
> confused when confronted with similar factual situations

Even you should be able to wank better than that.

>>> The shopper has entered into an executory contract
>>> whereby the shopper agrees to present the bag at exit.

>> Wrong. Just like they havent with a 'no refunds' sign.

> Correct,

Nope.

> and the second points irrelevance shows
> no concept of application of legal principles.

Even you should be able to wank better than that.

>>> The shopper then at exit refuses to present the bag.
>>> Here everyone parts company with legal logic and goes
>>> off on crazy tangents about forced searches etc etc.

>> Wrong. What has been discussed is what the
>> shopkeeper has the legal right to do in that situation.

>>> The simple legal fact is that the shopper now is in breach of contract.
>>> Nothing more, nothing less.

>> Wrong. Just like its wrong with the 'no refund' signs.

> Correct,

Nope.

> and the second points irrelevance shows
> no concept of application of legal principles.

Even you should be able to wank better than that.

>>> The normal rules regarding breach of contract apply.

>> Wrong. Just like its wrong with the 'no refund' signs.

> Correct,

Nope.

> learn basic contract law, your stupidity is showing.

Even you should be able to wank better than that.

>>> The shopkeeper would have to have a court order the shopper
>>> to comply with the terms of the contract and/ or pay damages.
>>> Exactly as in any other contractual situation.

>> Wrong. Just like its wrong with the 'no refund' signs.

> Correct,

Nope.

> learn basic contract law, your stupidity is showing.

Even you should be able to wank better than that.

>>> Why you all leap to this stupidity about the shopkeeper
>>> making the shopper comply with the terms of the
>>> contract by force defies comprehension.

>> You comprehension problems and your complete
>> pig ignorance of the law are your problem.

> Perhaps you could explain some law,

Just did, stupid.

> not just go off on a your frolics about wildly different fact situations.

Even you should be able to wank better than that.

> For example explain your concept of how the "no refund"
> signs have the same legal ramifications as the entry signs
> discussed, include references as to the operation of the
> TPA and state consumer law in both circumstances.

Even you should be able to wank better than that.

> I expect no reply as you patently have not the mental capacity
> to discuss law, ranting about factual situations is your limit.

Even you should be able to wank better than that.

>>> I thought there was only supposed to be one fool
>>> born every minute, this thread puts the lie to that.

>> Certainly does, you've just made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself.

And have just done so again.


Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 4/30/01 7:47 PM
johnson wrote:

> Lets go through this slowly and in a logical legal manner, not jumping
> from one fact situation to another and wild legal statements.
> First.
> The shopkeeper has what you call a "right' to inspect the bag if there
> is
> a sign at the entrance and the shopper then accepts the conditions of
> the contract of entry by entering.
> The shopper has entered into an executory contract whereby the shopper
> agrees to present the bag at exit.
> The shopper then at exit refuses to present the bag.
> Here everyone parts company with legal logic and goes off on crazy
> tangents about forced searches etc etc.
> The simple legal fact is that the shopper now is in breach of contract.

I'm sure as hell no expert on contract law but I thought that
an essential element of a valid contract was the notion of
"consideration".  Can you explain to me exactly what benefits
are being exchanged between the two parties in the case of
someone walking into a shop?

> Nothing more, nothing less.
> The normal rules regarding breach of contract apply.
> The shopkeeper would have to have a court order the shopper to comply
> with the terms of the contract and/ or pay damages. Exactly as in any
> other contractual situation.

Maybe I'm dumb (ask Rod) but could you explain to me
in what way the shopkeeper has been "damaged" by
someone who has not stolen anything refusing to submit
to a bag search?  How do you think the court would assess
the dollar cost to the shopkeeper of these "damages"?

Bag Search Refusal johnson 5/1/01 3:57 AM
Rod Speed wrote:

> >>>> That was not the topic of the thread.  Doggy wanted
> >>>> to know whether he had a legal right to demand bag
> >>>> searches AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE *regardless of
> >>>> whether there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing*.
>
> >>> Lets go through this slowly and in a logical legal manner, not jumping
> >>> from one fact situation to another and wild legal statements.
>
> >> You have in fact done just that yourself. So you can stop posturing now.
>
> >>> First.
> >>> The shopkeeper has what you call a "right' to inspect the
> >>> bag if there is a sign at the entrance and the shopper then
> >>> accepts the conditions of the contract of entry by entering.
>
> >> Wrong. Just because its on some sign says NOTHING useful about
> >> whether the shopkeeper has the legal right to do whats on the sign.
>
> > My statement is legally correct,
> Wrong.
A yes/no debate is your limit.

>
> > and indeed covers your point.
> Wrong again.

It does indeed cover your point, however Mr. Speed you are too dense to
understand.

Anyway here is a simple explanation of the original post:
By entering the shop after reading the sign the shopper enters into a
valid contract.
The sign contains the terms of the contract, in this case to have the
bag presented for inspection.
THUS the shopkeeper has the legal right to do whets on the sign i.e.
require the bag to be presented.
Thus the original answer answered your later question.
Think about it.

>
> > Think it through, slowly perhaps. It may be too
> > subtle for you, Mr Wachope may care to explain.
> Even you should be able to wank better than that.

see above


>
> >> Consider the situation where the sign claims that you have agreed to
> >> cavity searches if you cant manage to work the basics out for yourself.
>
> > Just jumping from one fact situation to another.
>
> SAME situation. No shopkeeper gets to do bag searches either
> just because they have a sign up saying that thats a condition of entry.

Jumping back to the original fact situation now are we?
Obviously a mind incapable of reasoned LEGAL thought.


>
> > Good for novelists but not for lawyers.
> Even you should be able to wank better than that.
>
> >> A much more common example the 'no refund' signs.
> >> Those have absolutely NO effect on the customer's
> >> right to a refund in a number of specific circumstances.
>
> > Why is this so?
>
> Coz the law says that the customer is entitled to a refund
> in a number of situations, goods not of merchantable quality,
> goods not fit for purpose, goods not matching the sample etc.

What law Mr. Speed.
Just "the law says" as in the childish "the law says you have to do
that".
Can you provide chapter and verse?
I think not, however don't despair, see below where I provide the
chapter and verse that you were incapable of  providing.


>
> No 'sign' can take that right away.
What a novel proposition.
Any legal basis, or again just the childish "the law says that"
Anyway see below for a clear legal statement.

>
> > Research the "no refund' signs
>
> No need, read the legislation and the summarys that are on a number
> of the govt operation web sites on that particular issue that are there
> to assist fools like you who cant manage to grasp the legal issues.

Ahhhh thats the basis for your dribbling, second hand knowledge, not
understood and badly applied.
Original material Mr. Speed, only ever rely on original material.


>
> > and find out why they have limited effect.
> Precisely the same reason that the bag search signs have limited effect.

Precisely WRONG.

The "bag search"  signs and the "no refund" signs are legally quite
different, similar factually and thats what confuses people like you Mr
Speed who apply factual situations and do  not apply the law.

I will explain slowly.
The 'no refund" signs are not invalid by dint of general law, they are
invalid due to statute law.
The primary Statute making the 'no refund' signs are invalid is the TPA
(Cwth Trade Practices Act) division 2 and s75 & s75A.
This Act confers the right of a refund to a consumer.
Now Mr. Speed contends "No sign can take that right away"
Luckily for everyone else the Cwth Parliamentary draftsmen knew Mr.
Speed was a fool and didn't follow his contention.
The parliamentary draftsmen knew, as does everyone except the learned
Mr. Speed, that you can contract out of your rights.
Thus the Cwth Parliamentary draftsmen included s68 which prohibits
contracting out of these rights.
Some states have enacted similar legislation.

Now back to Mr. Speeds second inane contention, that the " no refund"
signs and  the "bag search signs" have the same limited effect.
As we have seen the "no refund" signs have limited application because
of the protection provided by statute and the same statute prevents
contracting out of this right.

Now Mr Speed to prove your point the signs are the same can you provide
evidence of a similar statute providing protection to the "bag search"
signs and such statute preventing contracting out.
You cant.

Mr Speed I directed you to research this point for a reason. You didnt
research the point. Now you have flaunted your stupidity.

>
> > When you find out then you will understand why it is totally irrelevant here.
> Even you should be able to wank better than that.
>
> > This point demonstrates how your lack of understanding of
> > how to apply the law and this in turn causes you to become
> > confused when confronted with similar factual situations
>
> Even you should be able to wank better than that.
>
> >>> The shopper has entered into an executory contract
> >>> whereby the shopper agrees to present the bag at exit.
>
> >> Wrong. Just like they havent with a 'no refunds' sign.
>
> > Correct,
>
> Nope.
>
> > and the second points irrelevance shows
> > no concept of application of legal principles.
>
> Even you should be able to wank better than that.
see above

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 5/1/01 5:02 AM
johnson wrote:

> Now back to Mr. Speeds second inane contention, that the " no refund"
> signs and  the "bag search signs" have the same limited effect.
> As we have seen the "no refund" signs have limited application because
> of the protection provided by statute and the same statute prevents
> contracting out of this right.
> Now Mr Speed to prove your point the signs are the same can you provide
> evidence of a similar statute providing protection to the "bag search"
> signs and such statute preventing contracting out.
> You cant.
> Mr Speed I directed you to research this point for a reason. You didnt
> research the point. Now you have flaunted your stupidity.

I thought it was only Bond villains who redundantly addressed
their nemesis as Mr.  (I don't expect you to get this joke but
others might find mild amusement in it).

While it might be fun to try and pull Rod's dick I notice that you
haven't addressed my particular questions.  Can you enlighten us
as to how a sign in a shop constitutes a valid contract?  Can you
tell us what consideration is involved in someone walking into a
shop that then obliges them to meet the terms and conditions laid
out by the shopkeeper?  Can you tell us what damages the
shopkeeper might claim as a result of the customer failing to meet
their alleged contractual obligation to submit to a bag search?
Can you tell us why the courts have decided to award damages
*against* shopkeepers who have searched and detained people
who were not found to be shoplifting?  Can you tell us what the
limits of these shop contracts might be, e.g. you state that putting
up a sign saying a condition of entry to the shop is that bags must
be searched constitutes a valid contract - would it then be a valid
contract if I put up a sign saying that a condition of entry to the
shop is that all customers be strip-searched or that all customers
hand over their driver's license details before leaving the store?

Please think about my questions slowly and answer them in a
logical and legal manner.

Bag Search Refusal Alecto 5/1/01 5:08 AM
johnson wrote:
>
snip

>
> Anyway here is a simple explanation of the original post:
> By entering the shop after reading the sign the shopper enters into a
> valid contract.

I'm not apt to read signs on shops before I enter them ,does that mean I'm
exempt from the 'contract'?

> The sign contains the terms of the contract, in this case to have the
> bag presented for inspection.
> THUS the shopkeeper has the legal right to do whets on the sign i.e.
> require the bag to be presented.

I'm thinking of putting a little sign next to my front door that says "It is a
condition of entry that all voluptuous woman entering allow me to screw them
before they leave" ,you never know your luck ,some dizzy blonde might step in
without noticing it.

Alecto.

Bag Search Refusal Dave Proctor 5/1/01 6:06 AM
"Alina Holgate" <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3AEE9AD7.F07356A1@deakin.edu.au...

Bwahahahaaa - hell will freeze over before you get that from johnson.

Dave


Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 5/1/01 8:26 AM
On Tue, 01 May 2001 22:09:08 +1000, Alecto <ale...@goulburn.net.au>
wrote:

>johnson wrote:
>>
>snip
>>
>> Anyway here is a simple explanation of the original post:
>> By entering the shop after reading the sign the shopper enters into a
>> valid contract.
>
>I'm not apt to read signs on shops before I enter them ,does that mean I'm
>exempt from the 'contract'?

It's a question of reasonable notice.

>> The sign contains the terms of the contract, in this case to have the
>> bag presented for inspection.
>> THUS the shopkeeper has the legal right to do whets on the sign i.e.
>> require the bag to be presented.
>
>I'm thinking of putting a little sign next to my front door that says "It is a
>condition of entry that all voluptuous woman entering allow me to screw them
>before they leave" ,you never know your luck ,some dizzy blonde might step in
>without noticing it.

Or you might find the blue rinse brigade are wearing you out each
pension day.

In any case, you might find it would be deemed to promote sexual
immorality and illegal on that ground.

Bag Search Refusal Bunnyman 5/1/01 2:48 PM

"johnson" <joh...@primus.com> wrote in message
news:3AED4FA8.D187EEEC@primus.com...

> This debate has raged for around a week and
> all and sundry have missed the major point.
> Alina Holgate wrote:
> >
> > Rod Speed wrote:
> >
> > > Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
> > > WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
> >
> > That was not the topic of the thread.  Doggy wanted to
> > know whether he had a legal right to demand bag searches
> > AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE *regardless of whether
> > there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing*.
>
> Lets go through this slowly and in a logical legal manner, not jumping
> from one fact situation to another and wild legal statements.
> First.
> The shopkeeper has what you call a "right' to inspect the bag if there
> is
> a sign at the entrance and the shopper then accepts the conditions of
> the contract of entry by entering.
> The shopper has entered into an executory contract whereby the shopper
> agrees to present the bag at exit.

Define "executory contract" ?  If you are going to use legalese, at least
show
us "lay persons"  that you know what you are talking about.

> The shopper then at exit refuses to present the bag.
> Here everyone parts company with legal logic and goes off on crazy
> tangents about forced searches etc etc.
> The simple legal fact is that the shopper now is in breach of contract.

there is no contract whatsoever. nothing has been signed. For a contract to
be enforceable
there has to be some CONSIDERATION .. (ie money)


> Nothing more, nothing less.
> The normal rules regarding breach of contract apply.

Where is the contract ? A sign on a shop is not a contract.  DUH !

> The shopkeeper would have to have a court order the shopper to comply
> with the terms of the contract and/ or pay damages. Exactly as in any
> other contractual situation.

NO CONTRACT  wtf are you talking about ?

> Why you all leap to this stupidity about the shopkeeper making the
> shopper comply with the terms of the contract by force defies
> comprehension.

AGAIN NO CONTRACT ENTERED INTO..

Bag Search Refusal Bunnyman 5/1/01 2:56 PM

"johnson" <joh...@primus.com> wrote in message
news:3AEE9586.91FAEE67@primus.com...

Johnson keep digging your grave here. There is no contract and you fail to
understand
basic contract law , even 1st year uni students now that there is no valid
contract in this
situation . Keep Shoveling ! (Rod here you go , it's a live one !)

> The sign contains the terms of the contract, in this case to have the
> bag presented for inspection.

Keep Shovelling. Deeper , Deeper !

> THUS the shopkeeper has the legal right to do whets on the sign i.e.
> require the bag to be presented.
> Thus the original answer answered your later question.
> Think about it.

Sign on front of shop, says "condition of entry is that you have your head
shaved. is this a legal "valid" contract ?

Bag Search Refusal Alecto 5/1/01 5:48 PM
Horace Wachope wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 May 2001 22:09:08 +1000, Alecto <ale...@goulburn.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >johnson wrote:
> >>
> >snip
> >>
> >> Anyway here is a simple explanation of the original post:
> >> By entering the shop after reading the sign the shopper enters into a
> >> valid contract.
> >
> >I'm not apt to read signs on shops before I enter them ,does that mean I'm
> >exempt from the 'contract'?
>
> It's a question of reasonable notice.

But if I didn't read the sign then there was no notice ,nobody points it out to
me as I enter the shop.

>
> >> The sign contains the terms of the contract, in this case to have the
> >> bag presented for inspection.
> >> THUS the shopkeeper has the legal right to do whets on the sign i.e.
> >> require the bag to be presented.
> >
> >I'm thinking of putting a little sign next to my front door that says "It is a
> >condition of entry that all voluptuous woman entering allow me to screw them
> >before they leave" ,you never know your luck ,some dizzy blonde might step in
> >without noticing it.
>
> Or you might find the blue rinse brigade are wearing you out each
> pension day.

Err..., I did say voluptuous.

>
> In any case, you might find it would be deemed to promote sexual
> immorality and illegal on that ground.

I can't see as there's anything immoral about it, it's a free service.

Alecto.

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 5/1/01 9:48 PM
On Wed, 02 May 2001 10:48:22 +1000, Alecto <ale...@goulburn.net.au>
wrote:

>Horace Wachope wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 May 2001 22:09:08 +1000, Alecto <ale...@goulburn.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >johnson wrote:
>> >>
>> >snip
>> >>
>> >> Anyway here is a simple explanation of the original post:
>> >> By entering the shop after reading the sign the shopper enters into a
>> >> valid contract.
>> >
>> >I'm not apt to read signs on shops before I enter them ,does that mean I'm
>> >exempt from the 'contract'?
>>
>> It's a question of reasonable notice.
>
>But if I didn't read the sign then there was no notice ,nobody points it out to
>me as I enter the shop.

1) You missed the word 'reasonable'.
2) May be irrelevant. Even Illiteracy isn't an absolute 'defence'.

Courts have found that giving an illiterate notice in writing (eg. on
the back of a ticket) may in some cases consitute sufficient notice of
a condition.

>> >> The sign contains the terms of the contract, in this case to have the
>> >> bag presented for inspection.
>> >> THUS the shopkeeper has the legal right to do whets on the sign i.e.
>> >> require the bag to be presented.
>> >
>> >I'm thinking of putting a little sign next to my front door that says "It is a
>> >condition of entry that all voluptuous woman entering allow me to screw them
>> >before they leave" ,you never know your luck ,some dizzy blonde might step in
>> >without noticing it.
>>
>> Or you might find the blue rinse brigade are wearing you out each
>> pension day.
>
>Err..., I did say voluptuous.

You can't have a blue rinse and still be voluptuous?

>> In any case, you might find it would be deemed to promote sexual
>> immorality and illegal on that ground.
>
>I can't see as there's anything immoral about it, it's a free service.

What's a "free service" got to do with it? Or was that an attempt at
humour?

Other things that have been found illegal on this ground include
contracts providing for 'intimate' cohabitation. (ie. flat-mate with
benefits).

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 5/1/01 9:52 PM
On Tue, 01 May 2001 21:46:09 GMT, "Bunnyman" <bunn...@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:

>
>"johnson" <joh...@primus.com> wrote in message
>news:3AED4FA8.D187EEEC@primus.com...
>> This debate has raged for around a week and
>> all and sundry have missed the major point.
>> Alina Holgate wrote:
>> >
>> > Rod Speed wrote:
>> >
>> > > Pity what was being discussed was the right to search bags
>> > > WHEN THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
>> >
>> > That was not the topic of the thread.  Doggy wanted to
>> > know whether he had a legal right to demand bag searches
>> > AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE *regardless of whether
>> > there was any evidence/suspicion of stealing*.
>>
>> Lets go through this slowly and in a logical legal manner, not jumping
>> from one fact situation to another and wild legal statements.
>> First.
>> The shopkeeper has what you call a "right' to inspect the bag if there
>> is
>> a sign at the entrance and the shopper then accepts the conditions of
>> the contract of entry by entering.
>> The shopper has entered into an executory contract whereby the shopper
>> agrees to present the bag at exit.
>
>Define "executory contract" ?  If you are going to use legalese, at least
>show
>us "lay persons"  that you know what you are talking about.

An executory contract is one that hasn't yet been performed or carried
out by any of the parties.

>> The shopper then at exit refuses to present the bag.
>> Here everyone parts company with legal logic and goes off on crazy
>> tangents about forced searches etc etc.
>> The simple legal fact is that the shopper now is in breach of contract.
>
>there is no contract whatsoever. nothing has been signed. For a contract to
>be enforceable
>there has to be some CONSIDERATION .. (ie money)

Consideration = money? Where do you get this shit?

Ever heard of a funky thing called executory consideration? Obivously
not.

The exchange of promises is valid consideration.

Bag Search Refusal johnson 5/2/01 4:06 AM

Mr Wachope, please leave this group immediately; the posting of correct
legal information here will confuse the denizens even further.

Bag Search Refusal johnson 5/2/01 4:08 AM

Bwahahahaaa - exactly.
Even a woman can revisit the prior posts where most points have been
addressed, the remaining few points can be independently researched or,
should that be beyond her,
answered by Mr. Wachope.

Bag Search Refusal johnson 5/2/01 4:14 AM

Ahhh first you ask me a kindergarden question on contract.....

>
> > The shopper then at exit refuses to present the bag.
> > Here everyone parts company with legal logic and goes off on crazy
> > tangents about forced searches etc etc.
> > The simple legal fact is that the shopper now is in breach of contract.
>
> there is no contract whatsoever. nothing has been signed. For a contract to
> be enforceable
> there has to be some CONSIDERATION .. (ie money)

...then you lecture me on contract.
Mr Bunnyman you are indeed appropiately named.

Please follow the following steps:
1. Read Mr Wachopes advice then
2. Read a book on contract then
3. Then return here and repeat loudly "I am indeed a fucking idiot"

>
> > Nothing more, nothing less.
> > The normal rules regarding breach of contract apply.
>
> Where is the contract ? A sign on a shop is not a contract.  DUH !

>
> > The shopkeeper would have to have a court order the shopper to comply
> > with the terms of the contract and/ or pay damages. Exactly as in any
> > other contractual situation.
>
> NO CONTRACT  wtf are you talking about ?
>
> > Why you all leap to this stupidity about the shopkeeper making the
> > shopper comply with the terms of the contract by force defies
> > comprehension.
>
> AGAIN NO CONTRACT ENTERED INTO..

shouting stupidities does not make them any less stupid.

Bag Search Refusal Alecto 5/2/01 4:34 AM
Horace Wachope wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 May 2001 10:48:22 +1000, Alecto <ale...@goulburn.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >Horace Wachope wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 01 May 2001 22:09:08 +1000, Alecto <ale...@goulburn.net.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >johnson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >snip
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyway here is a simple explanation of the original post:
> >> >> By entering the shop after reading the sign the shopper enters into a
> >> >> valid contract.
> >> >
> >> >I'm not apt to read signs on shops before I enter them ,does that mean I'm
> >> >exempt from the 'contract'?
> >>
> >> It's a question of reasonable notice.
> >
> >But if I didn't read the sign then there was no notice ,nobody points it out to
> >me as I enter the shop.
>
> 1) You missed the word 'reasonable'.
> 2) May be irrelevant. Even Illiteracy isn't an absolute 'defence'.

Fair enough, I think I'll run with the sign.

>
> Courts have found that giving an illiterate notice in writing (eg. on
> the back of a ticket) may in some cases consitute sufficient notice of
> a condition.
>
> >> >> The sign contains the terms of the contract, in this case to have the
> >> >> bag presented for inspection.
> >> >> THUS the shopkeeper has the legal right to do whets on the sign i.e.
> >> >> require the bag to be presented.
> >> >
> >> >I'm thinking of putting a little sign next to my front door that says "It is a
> >> >condition of entry that all voluptuous woman entering allow me to screw them
> >> >before they leave" ,you never know your luck ,some dizzy blonde might step in
> >> >without noticing it.
> >>
> >> Or you might find the blue rinse brigade are wearing you out each
> >> pension day.
> >
> >Err..., I did say voluptuous.
>
> You can't have a blue rinse and still be voluptuous?

Hmm, I see your point(in theory), however the sign only says "allow me to screw
them" ,so who's screwed is at my discretion.

>
> >> In any case, you might find it would be deemed to promote sexual
> >> immorality and illegal on that ground.
> >
> >I can't see as there's anything immoral about it, it's a free service.
>
> What's a "free service" got to do with it? Or was that an attempt at
> humour?

I mean that I wasn't planing on charging them, so it's not prostitution, and
there's nothing immoral or illegal about sex between consenting adults ,and they
consented by coming in. So since my little sign lays out the rules of entry then
surely I would be acting within the law by screwing those I fancied, if they
didn't want to get screwed they had the option not to enter after reading my
sign, and if they didn't notice the sigh it's just bad luck ,as you established
above.

Alecto.

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 5/2/01 4:40 AM
johnson wrote:

> Dave Proctor wrote:
> >
> > "Alina Holgate" <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:3AEE9AD7.F07356A1@deakin.edu.au...

> > > While it might be fun to try and pull Rod's dick I notice that you


> > > haven't addressed my particular questions.  Can you enlighten us
> > > as to how a sign in a shop constitutes a valid contract?  Can you
> > > tell us what consideration is involved in someone walking into a
> > > shop that then obliges them to meet the terms and conditions laid
> > > out by the shopkeeper?  Can you tell us what damages the
> > > shopkeeper might claim as a result of the customer failing to meet
> > > their alleged contractual obligation to submit to a bag search?
> > > Can you tell us why the courts have decided to award damages
> > > *against* shopkeepers who have searched and detained people
> > > who were not found to be shoplifting?  Can you tell us what the
> > > limits of these shop contracts might be, e.g. you state that putting
> > > up a sign saying a condition of entry to the shop is that bags must
> > > be searched constitutes a valid contract - would it then be a valid
> > > contract if I put up a sign saying that a condition of entry to the
> > > shop is that all customers be strip-searched or that all customers
> > > hand over their driver's license details before leaving the store?
> > >
> > > Please think about my questions slowly and answer them in a
> > > logical and legal manner.
> >
> > Bwahahahaaa - hell will freeze over before you get that from johnson.
> >
> > Dave
>
> Bwahahahaaa - exactly.
> Even a woman can revisit the prior posts where most points have been
> addressed

The points I have raised have not been addressed by you.

You have not answered the direct question, posed twice now,
of what consideration is involved, which would make up one
of the elements of a valid contract, when someone walks into
a shop.

You have not answered the direct question, posed twice now,
of what damages a shopkeeper could claim from someone
refusing a bag search.

You have not answered the question of why courts have
awarded damages against shopkeepers who search and
detain people who have not shoplifted.

> the remaining few points can be independently researched

Why should I do your work for you?

> or, should that be beyond her, answered by Mr. Wachope.

Why should Horace do your work for you?  But let's
try it and see.  Horace, care to comment on the legal
validity of johnson's assertions?

Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 5/2/01 4:44 AM
Alecto wrote:

> Horace Wachope wrote:

> > What's a "free service" got to do with it? Or was that an attempt at
> > humour?
>
> I mean that I wasn't planing on charging them, so it's not prostitution, and
> there's nothing immoral or illegal about sex between consenting adults ,and they
> consented by coming in. So since my little sign lays out the rules of entry then
> surely I would be acting within the law by screwing those I fancied, if they
> didn't want to get screwed they had the option not to enter after reading my
> sign, and if they didn't notice the sigh it's just bad luck ,as you established
> above.

You've obviously thought about this slowly and then presented your
argument in a breathtakingly logical and legal manner.


Bag Search Refusal Alina Holgate 5/2/01 5:10 AM
Alina Holgate wrote:

> johnson wrote:

> > Even a woman can revisit the prior posts where most points have been
> > addressed
>
> The points I have raised have not been addressed by you.
> You have not answered the direct question, posed twice now,
> of what consideration is involved, which would make up one
> of the elements of a valid contract, when someone walks into
> a shop.
> You have not answered the direct question, posed twice now,
> of what damages a shopkeeper could claim from someone
> refusing a bag search.
> You have not answered the question of why courts have
> awarded damages against shopkeepers who search and
> detain people who have not shoplifted.
>
> > the remaining few points can be independently researched
>
> Why should I do your work for you?
>
> > or, should that be beyond her, answered by Mr. Wachope.
>
> Why should Horace do your work for you?  But let's
> try it and see.  Horace, care to comment on the legal
> validity of johnson's assertions?

Another question.  How come you've attempted to take on
Rod mano-a-mano but you haven't attempted to take on my
alleged stupidity with a point-by-point refutation (check the
dictionary, it's pronounced ref-u-ta-tion).  How come you're
more afraid of a girl than of Rod?


Bag Search Refusal Dave Proctor 5/2/01 8:34 AM
"Alecto" <ale...@goulburn.net.au> wrote in message
news:3AEFF0E1.7525BEDD@goulburn.net.au...
> Horace Wachope wrote:

> > >But if I didn't read the sign then there was no notice ,nobody points
it out to
> > >me as I enter the shop.
> >
> > 1) You missed the word 'reasonable'.
> > 2) May be irrelevant. Even Illiteracy isn't an absolute 'defence'.
>
> Fair enough, I think I'll run with the sign.

If you run with the sign it will no longer be there, hence it won't apply.

:-)

Dave


Bag Search Refusal Téa Smith 5/2/01 9:52 AM
I'm pretty sure that this comes under contract exclusion clauses... if it is
visible on entry, then I am pretty sure that the customer entering the store
accepts the conditions.

--
Téa Smith
ICQ:21859695
www.teasmith.com
Clinton Greer <clg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ae79e62.99098@nancy.pacific.net.au...
> Sorry - shopowners have a legislated right to search bags carried by
> customers providing that they display signs that tell customers.  During a
> search, a member of staff may look in the bag but may not touch the bag or
> anything in the bag.  If they see items which are beleived to be stolen
they
> may detain the suspect.  This action is a citizens arrest.  Simply by
> denying the customer leave from the premises a citizens arrest is being
> executed.  If it is discovered that the person was not stealing from the
> store, both the staff member who initiated the arrest and the store will
be
> liable for charges of false imprisonment.
>
> So, there is a legislated right for stores to search bags - but they
cannot
> touch anything.  A store has a right of refusal of entry which applies to
> all people, including police - a store is just like a house in this
respect.
> The owner may deny entry to anyone.
>
> My advice is worth what you paid for it.
> Clinton Greer


>
>
> "Alina Holgate" <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3AE6D0AE.28058D75@deakin.edu.au...
> > Kristen wrote:
> >
> > > If your premises is registered, and as you say, there are signs
clearly
> > > making it a condition of entry that bags be checked on the way out,
then
> the
> > > customer must present their bag if asked.  If the customer refuses,
then
> the
> > > customer can be detained by the security staff of that store.
> >
> > Bullshit.  Private citizens (which Mr. Shopholder and his security staff
> > are) have no legal right to search, detain, restrain, encumber, arrest
or
> > otherwise assault, invade the privacy of, or molest other private
citizens
> > (which Mr. Shopcustomer is).  If they suspect that someone has stolen
> > something from the shop the appropriate response is to ring the police
> > and report a suspected crime.  They might have the right to refuse
> > someone entry to their store but they do not have the right to search
> > their bags, anymore than posting a sign saying "a condition of entry to
> > this store is that all customers be strip searched by security staff on
> > their way out" would give them the legal right to do that.  Even the
> > police don't have absolute rights to obtain people's names and
> > addresses, search people or haul them into the station, for god's
> > sake.  Why do people persist in this dopey notion that signs posted
> > up in shops have any legal weight at all or form part of some sort
> > of "contract" and that all you have to do is post up a sign and this
> > suddenly invests the sign with magical legal properties.
> >
>
>


Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 5/2/01 10:12 AM
On Wed, 02 May 2001 21:34:57 +1000, Alecto <ale...@goulburn.net.au>
wrote:

You snipped an example of two consenting adults and illegality on
grounds of sexual immorality.

You wouldn't have a hope in hell of a successful suit seeking
'specific performance' if a woman withdrew consent after seeing your
'johnson'.  (Two double entendres in one sentence!)

> ,and they
>consented by coming in. So since my little sign lays out the rules of entry then
>surely I would be acting within the law by screwing those I fancied, if they
>didn't want to get screwed they had the option not to enter after reading my
>sign, and if they didn't notice the sigh it's just bad luck ,as you established
>above.

I didn't 'establish' any such thing. Only said it's a question of
reasonable notice, and that even illiteracy isn't necessarily a way
out.

I very much doubt that your 'little sign' would constitute reasonable
notice. The illiteracy example I gave you arose in the case of an
injury caused to a passenger due to a railway company's negligence.

The ticket was a "cheapie" ticket which had, printed on its reverse, a
notice saying it was issued subject to conditions in the timetable.
That in turn provided that tickets purchased for less than full price
are issued on the condition that purchasers have no right of action
againt the company in the event of injury.

Notwithstanding her illiteracy, the English Court of Appeal held that
there was sufficient notice because she must have realised discount
tickets carry restrictions.

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 5/2/01 1:56 PM

Téa Smith <tea...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3af039fc$0$31003@echo-01.iinet.net.au...

> I'm pretty sure that this comes under contract exclusion clauses...
> if it is visible on entry, then I am pretty sure that the customer
> entering the store accepts the conditions.

Wrong. Most obviously if the sign claims you agree to body searches.

Bag Search Refusal Téa Smith 5/2/01 8:20 PM
Yess... I am an idiot...

I posted it whilst tired - not that its an excuse... but I do agree that bag
searches can be declined by customers :)

--
Téa Smith
ICQ:21859695
www.teasmith.com
Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3af07437@news.iprimus.com.au...

Bag Search Refusal Big Ed 5/3/01 1:34 AM
G'Day Group

As usual  nothing ever seems to reach a conclusion but has a life of it's
own!

Just to throw a new question in.........


If the sign " only " allows entry if the shopper agrees to a bag search,
what happens if the shopper refuses to a search and keeps walking??

BIG  ed

Bag Search Refusal Dave Proctor 5/3/01 2:40 AM
"Big Ed" <bi...@ix.net.au> wrote in message
news:eL8I6.1156$nE4.1476@news.syd.ip.net.au...

The security droid is then faced with a dilemna - detain the person and
expose themself to an "unlawful arrest" claim if the person was not
shoplifting, or let the person go and risk stock loss if the person was a
shoplifter.

Dave


Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 5/3/01 3:06 AM

Big Ed <bi...@ix.net.au> wrote in message
news:eL8I6.1156$nE4.1476@news.syd.ip.net.au...

> If the sign " only " allows entry if the shopper agrees to a bag search,


> what happens if the shopper refuses to a search and keeps walking??

Nothing basically. The store owner can refuse
them entry next time they show up, but thats it.

And thats pretty theoretical because small shops arent stupid
enough to have bag search signs, and big ones cant hope to
keep track of who has refused to allow their bag to be searched.


Bag Search Refusal Big Ed 5/3/01 6:50 PM
> The security droid is then faced with a dilemna - detain the person and
> expose themself to an "unlawful arrest" claim if the person was not
> shoplifting, or let the person go and risk stock loss if the person was a
> shoplifter.
>
> Dave
>
>

Thanks dave for the reply.


BIG  ed


Bag Search Refusal Darkside 5/7/01 2:36 AM
It has been a long time since I have posted here, mainly due to time
constraints, but also due to morons who assert a legal knowledge, and
in the face of legal authority, continue to argue that their position
is the way the law stands.

However, I still browse through it, mainly for a good chuckle.  This
one, posted by Johnson and (perhaps Wachope - I missed the early
threads) could not allow me to remain silent.

There is no contract, but I'll work backwards for some interesting
points.
Those who assert there is a contract, and the shop keeper could
proceed to regain damages, answer these first questions;

    i.    What is the purpose of damages in breach of contract cases.
    ii.    What is the quantum of those damages, and how are they
assesed?

Darkside.

"johnson" wrote in message <3AEFE981...@primus.com>...

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 5/7/01 3:26 AM
On Mon, 7 May 2001 19:27:49 +1000, "Darkside" <darks...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>It has been a long time since I have posted here, mainly due to time
>constraints, but also due to morons who assert a legal knowledge, and
>in the face of legal authority, continue to argue that their position
>is the way the law stands.
>
>However, I still browse through it, mainly for a good chuckle.  This
>one, posted by Johnson and (perhaps Wachope - I missed the early
>threads) could not allow me to remain silent.

Dunno why I'm lumped in here. I spent most of the thread talking about
exclusion clauses and reasonable notice in the form of signs.

>There is no contract, but I'll work backwards for some interesting
>points.
>Those who assert there is a contract, and the shop keeper could
>proceed to regain damages, answer these first questions;

I'll answer anyway.

>    i.    What is the purpose of damages in breach of contract cases.

To place the plaintiff in the same position in which he/she/it would
have been if the contract had been properly performed.

>    ii.    What is the quantum of those damages, and how are they
>assesed?

By looking at the amount of the plaintiff's loss.

But even if there was actually a contract, wouldn't nominal damages be
awarded, as per Luna Park v Tramways?

Bag Search Refusal Martin Taylor 5/7/01 8:04 PM
Dave Proctor said......

 > If the sign " only " allows entry if the shopper agrees to a bag search,
 > what happens if the shopper refuses to a search and keeps walking??

 DP> The security droid is then faced with a dilemna - detain the person
 DP> and expose themself to an "unlawful arrest" claim if the person was not
 DP> shoplifting, or let the person go and risk stock loss if the person
 DP> was a shoplifter.

As far as I'm aware, such a condition of entry is not lawful or binding.
However, having said that, the store does have the right to refuse entry
to anyone it feels like.

As far as the security droid goes, there is no real dilema. He can
justify his search based on reasonable grounds ie: someone reporting
that they witnessed the shoplifting act, or that they saw it themselves,
or if the customer is acting in a suspicious behavior. If, however, he
can't justify his actions, then he could be in a bit of bother.

Remember too, that this probably applies to Victoria. I don't know what
the laws in other states are like in this area.

Cops, on the other hand, only have to act on their inate suspicion of
all people non-police. They just have to say, "we considered the suspect
to be acting in a suspicious behavior." Cops can pull you over for a
licence check any time that they feel like it, and not have to justify
this to anyone. If they think that you're acting nervously, then they
could decide to search the car or even you. Of course, they'll have a
bit of explaining to do if your nervousness was purely as a result from
being intimidated by the police and there was nothing to be found, and
Slater and Gordon got in on the act.

Now, in the end, common sense should prevail. If you have nothing to
hide, and there is nothing in your bag/purse that would cause you
embarressment (say, items of a personal nature), then it's just as easy
to open the bag, say in a polite, but condescending tone "satisfied?"
and walk out. It's often about dignity too, and some people feel
effronted when having a 16 yo ask or demand that you open up what is
essentially your private domain for their casual inspection.

I ride a bike. Once, I was doing a spot of shopping. I ended up getting
more than I initially anticipated. I didn't get a trolley or carry
basket. So I dropped some things into my helmet. I think that I was
being observed, but I didn't make out that I realised it. They all
probably breathed a sigh of relief when I emptied out my lid on the
checkout.

Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply

Bag Search Refusal Horace Wachope 5/7/01 9:26 PM
On Mon, 08 May 2001 01:19:17 +1000, "Martin Taylor"
<mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote:

>Dave Proctor said......
>
> > If the sign " only " allows entry if the shopper agrees to a bag search,
> > what happens if the shopper refuses to a search and keeps walking??
>
> DP> The security droid is then faced with a dilemna - detain the person
> DP> and expose themself to an "unlawful arrest" claim if the person was not
> DP> shoplifting, or let the person go and risk stock loss if the person
> DP> was a shoplifter.
>
>As far as I'm aware, such a condition of entry is not lawful or binding.
>However, having said that, the store does have the right to refuse entry
>to anyone it feels like.

Apart from for certain reasons (eg. race, sex).

>As far as the security droid goes, there is no real dilema. He can
>justify his search based on reasonable grounds ie: someone reporting
>that they witnessed the shoplifting act, or that they saw it themselves,
>or if the customer is acting in a suspicious behavior. If, however, he
>can't justify his actions, then he could be in a bit of bother.

That's wrong. It isn't lawful for a security guard to search someone
because someone reported they witnessed a 'shoplifting act', nor if
the customer is demonstrating suspicious behaviour.

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 5/7/01 11:56 PM

Martin Taylor <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote
in message news:00021b3e@chello.com.au...
> Dave Proctor said......

>>> If the sign " only " allows entry if the shopper agrees to a bag search,
>>> what happens if the shopper refuses to a search and keeps walking??

>> The security droid is then faced with a dilemna - detain
>> the person and expose themself to an "unlawful arrest"
>> claim if the person was not shoplifting, or let the person
>> go and risk stock loss if the person was a shoplifter.

> As far as I'm aware, such a condition of entry is not lawful

It is lawful to have that condition of entry.

Thats an entirely separate issue to the situations
in which its lawful to actually search the bag.

> or binding.

Yes, there is no 'contract'

> However, having said that, the store does have
> the right to refuse entry to anyone it feels like.

Thats not correct either, most obviously
when that is done on the basis of race.

> As far as the security droid goes, there is no real dilema. He can
> justify his search based on reasonable grounds ie: someone reporting
> that they witnessed the shoplifting act, or that they saw it themselves,

Yes.

> or if the customer is acting in a suspicious behavior.

Thats MUCH more dubious.

> If, however, he can't justify his actions, then he could be in a bit of bother.

And just claiming that the individual was 'acting
in a suspicious behavior' doesnt qualify if the
individual refuses to allow inspection of the bag.

Yes, if stolen goods are found in it when its searched anyway,
the store droid is legally safe, but if nothing is found, he's stuffed.

> Remember too, that this probably applies to Victoria. I don't
> know what the laws in other states are like in this area.

There isnt any real difference on that stuff.

> Cops, on the other hand, only have to act on
> their inate suspicion of all people non-police.

Wrong.

> They just have to say, "we considered the
> suspect to be acting in a suspicious behavior."

Wrong.

> Cops can pull you over for a licence check any time that
> they feel like it, and not have to justify this to anyone.

Different issue entirely. The law does make explicit provision for that.

They cannot however do that with someone minding their own
business walking around a shopping mall during normal trading hours.

> If they think that you're acting nervously, then
> they could decide to search the car or even you.

Thats a much more dubious proposition if they dont find anything.
The cops ARE NOT entitled to search anyone they feel like searching.

> Of course, they'll have a bit of explaining to do if your nervousness
> was purely as a result from being intimidated by the police and there
> was nothing to be found, and Slater and Gordon got in on the act.

They'd have buckleys basically except in some quite specific circumstances.

As they have discovered plenty of times.

> Now, in the end, common sense should prevail. If you have
> nothing to hide, and there is nothing in your bag/purse that
> would cause you embarressment (say, items of a personal
> nature), then it's just as easy to open the bag, say in a polite,
> but condescending tone "satisfied?" and walk out.

Sure, but you can say the same thing about the cops
rocking up and searching your house without a warrant
too. Very few think that approach makes any sense.

> It's often about dignity too, and some people feel effronted
> when having a 16 yo ask or demand that you open up what is
> essentially your private domain for their casual inspection.

And some goons rocking up and seaching your house in spades.

> I ride a bike. Once, I was doing a spot of shopping.
> I ended up getting more than I initially anticipated. I didn't
> get a trolley or carry basket. So I dropped some things
> into my helmet. I think that I was being observed, but I didn't
> make out that I realised it. They all probably breathed
> a sigh of relief  when I emptied out my lid on the checkout.

Or it happens all the time.

Bag Search Refusal Phil C 5/8/01 6:22 AM
That a considered or semi educated opinion Rodney ?

"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3af797bb@news.iprimus.com.au...
Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 5/8/01 1:17 PM

Some pathetic drunk/pathological liar/rabid psychopath/
pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist/flagrant hypocrite/admitted
criminal/posturing prat/desperate wanker, hiding behind
Phil C <trapcl...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:AbSJ6.22240$482.104327@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
just what you'd expect from a pathetic drunk/pathological liar/
rabid psychopath/pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist/flagrant
hypocrite/admitted criminal/posturing prat/desperate wanker

Try harder pathetic drunk/pathological liar/rabid psychopath/
pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist/flagrant hypocrite/
admitted criminal/posturing prat/desperate wanker.

You might actually manage to fool someone, some of the time.

Fat chance.


Bag Search Refusal Martin Taylor 5/8/01 3:20 PM
Rod Speed said..

 > However, having said that, the store does have
 > the right to refuse entry to anyone it feels like.

 RS> Thats not correct either, most obviously
 RS> when that is done on the basis of race.

Horace pointed out the discrimination aspect. I wasn't refering to that.
Just the shop owner's right to disallow entry. Perhaps it's different in
other states, but I think that it is allowable in Vic. Otherwise,
exclusive nightclubs and the like wouldn't be able to get away with
refusing entry to a single male, for example, no matter whether he's
dressed in a suit, of neat and clean appearance and sober.

Then again, perhaps nightclubs are different in the eyes of the law.

What do others think?

Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 5/8/01 5:20 PM

Martin Taylor <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote
in message news:0002209d@chello.com.au...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Martin Taylor <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote

>>> However, having said that, the store does have
>>> the right to refuse entry to anyone it feels like.

>> Thats not correct either, most obviously


>> when that is done on the basis of race.

> Horace pointed out the discrimination aspect.

I had already done so more than once in this particular thread.

> I wasn't refering to that. Just the shop owner's right to disallow entry.

Your original statement is just plain wrong.

> Perhaps it's different in other states,

Nope.

> but I think that it is allowable in Vic.

Yep. But thats been quite explicitly disallowed when thats done on
a number of specific grounds. So your original is just plain wrong.

> Otherwise, exclusive nightclubs and the like wouldn't be able to get
> away with refusing entry to a single male, for example, no matter
> whether he's dressed in a suit, of neat and clean appearance and sober.

Yes, but if they are stupid enough to try that on a race basis, they're stuffed.

Your 'the right to refuse entry to anyone it feels like' is just plain wrong.

> Then again, perhaps nightclubs are different in the eyes of the law.

Not on that particular question they arent.

> What do others think?

Everyone who has commented has pointed
out to you that your original is just plain wrong.


Bag Search Refusal Scanner Freak 5/23/01 6:48 AM
There are no 'reasonable grounds to suspect' by security practitioners.
They have to witness the unlawful act in it's entirety before they can
lawfully detain and search. The picking up and the taking away of goods.
Remember, we are talking Security Officers or Shopkeeper here, not Police
who have other acts, legislation, such as the fish and chip act of 1998,
etc.  Lets discuss Actus Reus and Mens Rae here...this should be good!

I'm glad I have never had to go to court charged with an offence, you
bastards would cost me a fortune!

Martin Taylor <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote in message
news:00021b3e@chello.com.au...

Bag Search Refusal Craig Sanders 6/4/01 6:00 AM
On Wed, 23 May 2001 23:47:59 +1000, Scanner Freak <scanne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>  There are no 'reasonable grounds to suspect' by security
>  practitioners.  They have to witness the unlawful act in it's
>  entirety before they can lawfully detain and search. The picking up
>  and the taking away of goods.  Remember, we are talking Security
>  Officers or Shopkeeper here, not Police who have other acts,
>  legislation, such as the fish and chip act of 1998, etc.  Lets
>  discuss Actus Reus and Mens Rae here...this should be good!

there are in fact cases where supermarkets have been found liable when
their security guards have overstepped the mark and assaulted customers
by attempting to detain them.

dunno if it's urban legend or not but i've heard of cases where
people deliberately "acted suspiciously" in order to provoke an
illegal arrest/assault by the store detective. ethically dubious
to say the least...i could support it if the intent was to make a
legal/civil-liberties point about the evils of profiling, but not if the
motive was purely financial.


>  Martin Taylor <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote in message
>  news:00021b3e@chello.com.au...
> > Now, in the end, common sense should prevail. If you have nothing to
> > hide, and there is nothing in your bag/purse that would cause you
> > embarressment (say, items of a personal nature), then it's just as easy
> > to open the bag, say in a polite, but condescending tone "satisfied?"
> > and walk out. It's often about dignity too, and some people feel
> > effronted when having a 16 yo ask or demand that you open up what is
> > essentially your private domain for their casual inspection.

i personally find it a gross invasion of privacy and an outrageous
insult. by asking to search my bag they are accusing me of theft, but
doing it in a sneaky manner in order to avoid liability for their
slander.

even worse, they are reversing the onus of proof by demanding that i
prove i am innocent (this is something that pisses me off about breath
testing, but in that case i can accept it as a necessary evil because
there are too many stupid bastards around who think it's OK to drink and
drive).

my responses are usually something like:

1) yes, you can look in my bag. the fee is $50 per person for a 30
second glimpse. protracted searches cost extra. cash. in advance.

2) first accuse me of theft in writing and call the police to have me
charged. then i will allow the police to look in my bag. after that, i
will forward your written accusation to my solicitor for further action.

oddly enough, none of them ever take me up on my offer...even after
calling the manager over to discuss it. maybe that's because they know
they don't have a leg to stand on and realise that i know it too.


fortunately, none of the local supermarkets or shops have insulted me
in this manner for years...they must recognise me (i'm fairly noticable
and easily remembered). i guess it's also partly because of my age - i'm
into my 30s now and (apart from long hair and a beard) no longer fit the
profile (mostly teens and early to mid 20s) that they victimise with
their false accusations.

even more fortunately, none of the security guards has ever attempted to
detain or even touch me (me being 6'5" is probably a bit of a deterrent
:) - they'd be up on assault & battery and wrongful arrest (it's too bad
that attempted kidnapping wouldn't apply) charges plus whatever civil
compensation/damages i could claim for.


craig

--
craig sanders <c...@no.spam.taz.net.au>

Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 6/4/01 3:05 PM

Craig Sanders <c...@no.spam.taz.net.au> wrote in
message news:slrn9hn0qo.vf2.cas@siva.taz.net.au...
> Scanner Freak <scanne...@hotmail.com> wrote

>> There are no 'reasonable grounds to suspect' by security
>> practitioners.  They have to witness the unlawful act in it's
>> entirety before they can lawfully detain and search. The picking up
>> and the taking away of goods.  Remember, we are talking Security
>> Officers or Shopkeeper here, not Police who have other acts,
>> legislation, such as the fish and chip act of 1998, etc.  Lets
>> discuss Actus Reus and Mens Rae here...this should be good!

> there are in fact cases where supermarkets have been found
> liable when their security guards have overstepped the mark
> and assaulted customers by attempting to detain them.

Yes, but only those where there has in fact been no criminal activity.

> dunno if it's urban legend or not but i've heard of cases
> where people deliberately "acted suspiciously" in order
> to provoke an illegal arrest/assault by the store detective.
> ethically dubious to say the least...i could support it if the
> intent was to make a legal/civil-liberties point about the evils
> of profiling, but not if the motive was purely financial.

>>  Martin Taylor <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote

>>> Now, in the end, common sense should prevail. If you have nothing


>>> to hide, and there is nothing in your bag/purse that would cause you
>>> embarressment (say, items of a personal nature), then it's just as easy
>>> to open the bag, say in a polite, but condescending tone "satisfied?"
>>> and walk out. It's often about dignity too, and some people feel
>>> effronted when having a 16 yo ask or demand that you open up
>>> what is essentially your private domain for their casual inspection.

> i personally find it a gross invasion of privacy and an outrageous insult.

Your problem. You are always free to avoid those stores.

> by asking to search my bag they are accusing me of theft,

Crap, they're checking to see if theft has occurred.

> but doing it in a sneaky manner in order to avoid liability for their slander.

Wota wanker.

> even worse, they are reversing the onus of
> proof by demanding that i prove i am innocent

Wrong again.

> (this is something that pisses me off about breath testing, but in that
> case i can accept it as a necessary evil because there are too many
> stupid bastards around who think it's OK to drink and drive).

Just as true with shop thieves. You end up paying for their activitys.

> my responses are usually something like:

> 1) yes, you can look in my bag. the fee is $50 per person for a 30
> second glimpse. protracted searches cost extra. cash. in advance.

Wota wanker.

> 2) first accuse me of theft in writing and call the police to have me
> charged. then i will allow the police to look in my bag. after that, i
> will forward your written accusation to my solicitor for further action.

Wota wanker.

> oddly enough, none of them ever take me up on my offer...

If they've got any sense they'll just ban you from their store.

> even after calling the manager over to discuss it. maybe that's because
> they know they don't have a leg to stand on and realise that i know it too.

Wrong again. They're welcome to ban you from their store.

> fortunately, none of the local supermarkets or shops have insulted
> me in this manner for years...they must recognise me (i'm fairly
> noticable and easily remembered). i guess it's also partly because
> of my age - i'm into my 30s now and (apart from long hair and a
> beard) no longer fit the profile (mostly teens and early to mid 20s)
> that they victimise with their false accusations.

Corse there aint any shop thieves at all eh ?  Wota wanker.

> even more fortunately, none of the security guards has ever attempted
> to detain or even touch me (me being 6'5" is probably a bit of a
> deterrent :) - they'd be up on assault & battery and wrongful arrest

Depends on whether you have been engaging in criminal activity.

> (it's too bad that attempted kidnapping wouldn't apply)

Wota wanker.

> charges plus whatever civil compensation/damages i could claim for.

Pathetic really.

Bag Search Refusal Oscar de La Couronne 6/4/01 3:50 PM
Rody...you know what? I'll change my doctoral thesis submission date due end
of this year to accomodate your wanking views on security officers powers!

YOU ARE AN ABSOULUTE IGNORANT...


--
Oscar de La Couronne

oscar_de_l...@hotmail.com

"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b1c064c@news.iprimus.com.au...

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 6/4/01 5:48 PM

Some pathological liar claiming to be
Oscar de La Couronne <oscar_de_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KgUS6.6291$25.22475@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au...
nothing but the shit that always drops from the back of it.


Bag Search Refusal Oscar de La Couronne 6/4/01 6:44 PM
Always the same posting coming from the same frustrated psychopath...

--
Oscar de La Couronne

oscar_de_l...@hotmail.com


"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b1c2c44@news.iprimus.com.au...

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 6/4/01 8:50 PM

Some pathological liar claiming to be
Oscar de La Couronne <oscar_de_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kQWS6.6327$25.22688@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au...
Bag Search Refusal Craig Sanders 6/4/01 11:59 PM
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:05:27 +1000, Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [a load of useless crap]

i can see you're just as much of a worthless waste of space as you were
a decade and more ago on fidonet. your persona and the quality of your
scribblings haven't changed a bit.

it isn't worth the bother of responding to any alleged "points" made by
such an odious little man.

*plonk*

craig

--
craig sanders <c...@no.spam.taz.net.au>

Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch

Bag Search Refusal jcruz 6/5/01 3:31 AM
"Craig Sanders" <c...@no.spam.taz.net.au> wrote in message
news:slrn9hotk9.k2v.cas@no.spam.taz.net.au...

> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:05:27 +1000, Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [a load of useless crap]
>
> i can see you're just as much of a worthless waste of space as you were
> a decade and more ago on fidonet. your persona and the quality of your
> scribblings haven't changed a bit.

That's becasue the bot script hasn't been updated since 1992.


Bag Search Refusal Craig Sanders 6/5/01 6:00 AM
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:57:39 +1000, frsaa <c...@bd.com> wrote:
> Some pathetic wanker claiming to be

> Craig Sanders <c...@no.spam.taz.net.au> wrote in
> message news:slrn9hotk9.k2v.cas@no.spam.taz.net.au...
> just the childish shit that always drops from the back of it.
>
> Try harder, posturing wanker.

oh look! how cute. the first artificial stupidity bot that's both a
troll and a sock-puppet.

*plonk*

don't bother responding, i'll just killfile each of your sock puppets
and fake addresses as they annoy me. if it ends up annoying me too much
i'll just write a script to auto-killfile anything that looks like your
crap.

craig

--
craig sanders <c...@no.spam.taz.net.au>

Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch

Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 6/5/01 12:54 PM

Some gutless fuckwit that cant even manage to work out the
difference between unaccompanied baggage and mail order,
or the difference between Integral Energy being quite happy to
provide power just as long as the usual conditions like an inspection
on the underground feed are met etc, and no power being available,
ever, under any circumstances, desperately cowering behind
DrWhom <Drw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3B1CBD69.751D0A27@hotmail.com...
just the pathetic attempt to bullshit its way out
of its predicament thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, gutless wanker. You might actually
manage to fool someone, sometime.


Bag Search Refusal zap 6/5/01 12:56 PM

 Some pathetic wanker claiming to be
Craig Sanders <c...@no.spam.taz.net.au> wrote in
message news:slrn9hpkth.ruk.cas@no.spam.taz.net.au...
Bag Search Refusal Oscar de La Couronne 6/5/01 7:53 PM

"DrWhom" <Drw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B1CBD69.751D0A27@hotmail.com...
> Oscar de La Couronne wrote:
> >
> > Rody...you know what? I'll change my doctoral thesis submission date due
end
> > of this year to accomodate your wanking views on security officers
powers!
> >
> > YOU ARE AN ABSOULUTE IGNORANT...
> >
>
>
> Oscar thats the first thing you have got right.
>
> See the thread "Problem with Inergral energy'
> There Rod posts 3 classic stupidities because of his ignorance of
> reading and comprehension
>
> 1. The poster asks about "three essential services" for a subdivision.
> Then Rod completely fails to understand simple English and launches into
> a prolonged rant about all these optional services such as pay TV etc.
>
> 2. I post a line beginning "In the subdivision... "  and Rod replies
> "but that doesn't apply out of the subdivision..  "  DUH  would someone
> explain to Rod "in" is the opposite of "out'
>
> Rod saved the best for his rebuttal of the above stupidities.
>
> 3 After the discussion of "residential subdivisions' Rod then chimes in
> with the most profound observation " that doesn't apply to subdivisions
> that aint gunna be built on" [Rods english not mine]
> Will someone explain to Rod what a residential subdivision is.
>
> It is obvious Rods lack of basic reading and comprehension skills would
> disqualify him from being even a Rugby League forward.


LOL...


--


Oscar de La Couronne

oscar_de_l...@hotmail.com


Bag Search Refusal Rod Speed 6/6/01 12:50 PM

Some gutless fuckwit that cant even manage to work out the
difference between unaccompanied baggage and mail order,
or the difference between Integral Energy being quite happy to
provide power just as long as the usual conditions like an inspection
on the underground feed are met etc, and no power being available,
ever, under any circumstances, desperately cowering behind
DrWhom <Drw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3B1E155E.FD37314E@hotmail.com...
Bag Search Refusal Jon Biddell 6/29/01 6:54 AM
[posted and mailed]

"Scanner Freak" <scanne...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:FaPO6.3094$Ld4.1...@ozemail.com.au:

> There are no 'reasonable grounds to suspect' by security practitioners.
> They have to witness the unlawful act in it's entirety before they can
> lawfully detain and search. The picking up and the taking away of goods.
> Remember, we are talking Security Officers or Shopkeeper here, not Police
> who have other acts, legislation, such as the fish and chip act of 1998,
> etc.  Lets discuss Actus Reus and Mens Rae here...this should be good!


Shops have the right to ask - you have the right to refuse. They can't
physically restrain you (assault, etc), but they can request you remain
until the Police arrive.

If I get asked to open my bag, I refuse on principle - if they refuse to
complete the sale, I'm happy to walk out. Only once have I stayed and
argued (loudly) with the manager, saying that I'd be happy to open my bag
if;

1. He called the Police immediately.
2. He accused me of stealing something BEFORE I opened my bag.
3. He gave me the name of the company's Solicitor, because I was about to
sue the arse off them.

Sure, I was asked not to return to the store, but they can't prevent you
from shopping there unless they're prepared to have you banned fr4om an
entire shopping complex, and take that to court.

Bag Search Refusal BYH Chou 6/30/01 3:05 AM

"Jon Biddell" <780...@today.com.au> wrote in message
news:Xns90CFF2D39DD7E780xlttodaycomau@202.181.16.7...

> [posted and mailed]
>
> "Scanner Freak" <scanne...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:FaPO6.3094$Ld4.1...@ozemail.com.au:
>
> > There are no 'reasonable grounds to suspect' by security practitioners.
> > They have to witness the unlawful act in it's entirety before they can
> > lawfully detain and search. The picking up and the taking away of goods.
> > Remember, we are talking Security Officers or Shopkeeper here, not
Police
> > who have other acts, legislation, such as the fish and chip act of 1998,
> > etc.  Lets discuss Actus Reus and Mens Rae here...this should be good!
>
>
> Shops have the right to ask - you have the right to refuse. They can't
> physically restrain you (assault, etc), but they can request you remain
> until the Police arrive.

...

My approach was to place the bag in front of them and invited them to
inspect
it. They requested that I open it because it was their "policy" that staff
aren't
allowed to open bags. I declined, pointing out that the sign only said that
I had
to "present the bag for inspection", nothing about opening it. They got
flustered
and waved me through!

BYHC

Bag Search Refusal Jon Biddell 7/3/01 5:20 AM

> My approach was to place the bag in front of them and invited them to
> inspect
> it. They requested that I open it because it was their "policy" that
> staff aren't
> allowed to open bags. I declined, pointing out that the sign only said
> that I had
> to "present the bag for inspection", nothing about opening it. They got
> flustered
> and waved me through!

I muwst remember this one - it could be good for a laugh at times...:-)

More topics »