Security alarm hoax so they could check my bag at supermarket
boris.w...@googlemail.com
off
It is my understanding that these alarms are triggered by security
tags that have not been removed , however in this case a supermarket
employee (probably CCTV operator) set off the alarm as I passed
through the barrier - it was not activated by my bag although it was
staged to look like my bag had set it off
The security guard asked to see the contents of my bag , I said I
would walk through the barrier again to see if it set the alarm off
again - the alarm sounded again so I showed the contents of my bag to
the security guard and he wanted to see the receipt for the shopping I
had just bought even though I had just paid for it by credit card at
the checkout
I had shopping from the previous day in my bag - I suppose it was
fortunate that the receipts for the goods were in my bag
I suggested to the security guard that the alarm had been activated by
the supermarket staff on purpose just so they could look in my bag but
he denied it
I asked the security guard what item he suspected had set off the
alarm , he said "mobile phone" I said I don't have a mobile phone and
I doubt that this particular store sells mobile phones - he said he
doesn't know if they sell mobile phones
I said the CCTV operator can override the checkouts remotely - he said
that the equipment at that store was old and could not do that
What do you think about supermarket staff setting off the alarm to
make it look like my bag has set it off ?
should I have been embarrassed about being approached by the security
staff ?, what would the other shoppers have thought ?
I handlled the situation in the manner described above - I was
confident - I did not turn red - I know more about how the checkouts
and security equipment work than a lot of the staff
I think the reason for suspicion was that I had a 50p coupon for 500ml
Old Speckled Hen ale from the neck of a promotional 355ml bottle
purchased 3 weeks ago and was buying the 500ml bottle today but had to
search in my bag for the coupon and the CCTV operator may have thought
that I had put something in my bag while I was getting the coupon out
If they had any manners they would have given me the shopping free to
cover the inconvenience
that is one reason I don't report shoplifters if I see them
I have been shopping in other branches of this supermarket daily for
years, but have only been in this branch twice this year
I have no need to steal from shops and do not dress like a chav
Also note that CCTV operators can remotely override the checkouts -
they can block credit cards so you could enter your PIN
and think you have paid when the CCTV operator has blocked it and they
were messing about with my credit card today
Also there is a microphone in the checkout which can hear the
customer , in a previous visit the checkout operator did not know why
the checkout would not process my transaction - I said the CCTV
operator is blocking it - they unblocked it as soon as they knew I was
aware of their game
of course you have seen ASDA checkout operators using the "intercom"
built into the checkout
this wasn't ASDA though
The-Sbray
<boris.w...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ab1db3c7-567e-491b...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I've had items purchased from one store set off the alarm in another store
(purchased an item from Boots which then set off the alarm in WH Smiths).
Aidy
> tags that have not been removed , however in this case a supermarket
> employee (probably CCTV operator) set off the alarm as I passed
> through the barrier
CCTV HorrorFags?
Mike_B
<noe...@noemail.xxx> writes
Must admit that on reading this I couldn't help wonder if any of the
security staff spoke in an obscene English pig voice.
--
Mike_B
Dilinger
Why the big secret ?
What store was it ?
D
Toom Tabard
> I had shopping from the previous day in my bag - I suppose it was
> fortunate that the receipts for the goods were in my bag
That might be a bit unusual for supermarket produce. Could this have
been noticed by security staff or at checkout? It might understandably
have raised suspicions, particularly if they were the supermarkets own-
brand goods.
Toom
PDR
<boris.w...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ab1db3c7-567e-491b...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> off
>
> It is my understanding that these alarms are triggered by security
> tags that have not been removed , however in this case a supermarket
> employee (probably CCTV operator) set off the alarm as I passed
> through the barrier - it was not activated by my bag although it was
> staged to look like my bag had set it off
How do you know this? Is it definitely true or just an assumption? These
detectors DO suffer a highish rate of "false positives".
> I had shopping from the previous day in my bag
Why? This is an incredibly stupid thing to do. It is generally very poor
practice to take any goods from a store back into the same store unless they
are clearly "used" (packaging removed etc). Security tguards will generally
try to stop you doing it because it's often part of an attempt to introduce
general confusion to disguise an shoplifting attempt. Indeed this may have
been the reason they wished to search you bag in the first place (assuming
your assumption about the deliberate triggering of the alarm is true, which
I doubt).
PDR
The Todal
<boris.w...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ab1db3c7-567e-491b...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Sounds unlikely.
>
> should I have been embarrassed about being approached by the security
> staff ?, what would the other shoppers have thought ?
I'd have found it embarrassing. But I wouldn't have stopped. I'd have gone
on through and ignored them if they had asked to look at my shopping.
>
> I handlled the situation in the manner described above - I was
> confident - I did not turn red - I know more about how the checkouts
> and security equipment work than a lot of the staff
>
>
> I think the reason for suspicion was that I had a 50p coupon for 500ml
> Old Speckled Hen ale from the neck of a promotional 355ml bottle
> purchased 3 weeks ago and was buying the 500ml bottle today but had to
> search in my bag for the coupon and the CCTV operator may have thought
> that I had put something in my bag while I was getting the coupon out
>
> If they had any manners they would have given me the shopping free to
> cover the inconvenience
I don't suppose they would ever do that.
>
> that is one reason I don't report shoplifters if I see them
>
> I have been shopping in other branches of this supermarket daily for
> years, but have only been in this branch twice this year
>
> I have no need to steal from shops and do not dress like a chav
Nor did Lady Isobel Barnett.
>
> Also note that CCTV operators can remotely override the checkouts -
> they can block credit cards so you could enter your PIN
> and think you have paid when the CCTV operator has blocked it and they
> were messing about with my credit card today
That sounds very unlikely. If it was possible then it would be a scandal
that ought to be exposed in the newspapers and on Panorama.
>
> Also there is a microphone in the checkout which can hear the
> customer , in a previous visit the checkout operator did not know why
> the checkout would not process my transaction - I said the CCTV
> operator is blocking it - they unblocked it as soon as they knew I was
> aware of their game
>
> of course you have seen ASDA checkout operators using the "intercom"
> built into the checkout
> this wasn't ASDA though
If the alarm goes off at the checkout, the reaction of the staff in most
shops is to say "don't worry, it sometimes does that" and to let you
continue on your way without turning out the contents of your bag.
You are under no obligation to stop and allow yourself to be searched. If
they haven't see you pilfer something from the shelves they have no good
reason for stopping you and searching you - the fact that the alarm has gone
off is not, by itself, sufficient justification.
If they bar your way and refuse to let you pass, tell them you will be
claiming for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment. Don't fight them,
though.
bealoid
9330f2...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> I was in a supermarket today and when I was leaving the alarm went
> off
[snip]
> The security guard asked to see the contents of my bag
You don't have to let them look at your bag. You could ask them to call
the police to check your bag. You could just ignore them and walk out.
(not quite so) Fat Sam
You should pop into Asda...They sell tin foil helmets...
Also, did you know that the fillings in your teeth contain tiny RFID chips
and FM transmitters which allow the government to track your movements and
evesdrop on your conversations?
But you can block this by selotaping a small forest of wire coathangers to
your ceiling.
Mike_B
<sig...@bealoid.co.uk> writes
At that point they stop you and hold you on suspicion of theft until a
policeman arrives.
--
Mike_B
The Todal
"Mike_B" <use...@localhosts.net> wrote in message
news:Epe1r2GC...@localhosts.net...
And then you collect a nice award of damages later. A win-win situation.
(not quite so) Fat Sam
> <boris.w...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:ab1db3c7-567e-491b...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> I was in a supermarket today and when I was leaving the alarm went
>> off
>>
>> It is my understanding that these alarms are triggered by security
>> tags that have not been removed , however in this case a supermarket
>> employee (probably CCTV operator) set off the alarm as I passed
>> through the barrier - it was not activated by my bag although it was
>> staged to look like my bag had set it off
>
>
> How do you know this? Is it definitely true or just an assumption?
> These detectors DO suffer a highish rate of "false positives".
Indeed.
Every time my wifes mobility scooter goes into or out of TJ Hughes in town,
something in the electrics sets off the alarms.
I've seen mobile phones set them off.
I've set them off when entering a shop, and the only thing I was carrying
that I can imagine would possibly have set it off would have been my
wristwatch.
The sensors on these things work by detecting a signature from an RFID chip.
The problem is, RFID chips exist in so many things nowadays, and even more
things with electronic circuitry can simulate that signature...
On a slightly different, and less paranoid note, are there any electronics
wizzards here who could explain this for me?
I've already siad how the alarm sensors in a certain shop go off every time
my wifes mobility scooter goes past them...But something else odd
happens....
Every time she goes through the sensors, her scooter judders, and after
about 10 minutes, the battery dies completely...I mean totally drained....
Even if we've just charged the battery up that morning, something drains it
of all power, and the only common factor that I can think of is that alarm
sensor at TJ Hughes....
It's not an old battery, and it holds its charge for ages, so long as we
stay away from TJ's...
Could this be the alarm sensor?...And if so, how on earth does it suck
electricity which I have paid for from a battery?
I wonder if I could demand that TJ's pay part of my lecky bill, as they seem
intent on stealing it every time I go in their shop ;-)
judith
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote in
message news:fsvmhq$9sg$1...@aioe.org...
You should pop into Asda...They sell tin foil helmets...
Mark Hewitt
<boris.w...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ab1db3c7-567e-491b...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> off
>
> It is my understanding that these alarms are triggered by security
> tags that have not been removed , however in this case a supermarket
> employee (probably CCTV operator) set off the alarm as I passed
> through the barrier - it was not activated by my bag although it was
> staged to look like my bag had set it off
So you ignore the very likely scenario that there was something in your bag
which set it off, and instead choose to believe it was some sort of
conspiracy against you!
bealoid
news:fsvmhq$9sg$1...@aioe.org:
[snip]
> The sensors on these things work by detecting a signature from an RFID
> chip.
No they don't, very few alarms are triggered by RFID tags.
> The problem is, RFID chips exist in so many things nowadays,
No they don't.
> and even more things with electronic circuitry can simulate that
> signature...
This is wrong however I interpret it; there's not much that "simulates an
RFID signature", there's not much that simulates the response tags make
when they enter the alarm-scanner field, etc.
(not quite so) Fat Sam
On the contrary, there's obviouusly a lot of things that simulate the
response tags make when they enter the alarm-canner field.
If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't have the abundance of false alarms
that we currently do.
I have triggered the alarms on several occasions when I wasn't carrying
anything more than a mobile phone, a watch, or just a few cards in my
wallet.
All you have done is refute things.
How about you actually suggest an explanation as to why I am able to set off
the alarms in certain shops when I'm not carrying something that bears an
anti-theft tag.
M.I.5¾
A store security guard cannot do that without making a specific allegation.
Damages for a malicious allegation (i.e. where there is no proof), then
rears its head.
Svenne
<saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>On a slightly different, and less paranoid note, are there any electronics
>wizzards here who could explain this for me?
>I've already siad how the alarm sensors in a certain shop go off every time
>my wifes mobility scooter goes past them...But something else odd
>happens....
>Every time she goes through the sensors, her scooter judders, and after
>about 10 minutes, the battery dies completely...I mean totally drained....
>Even if we've just charged the battery up that morning, something drains it
>of all power, and the only common factor that I can think of is that alarm
>sensor at TJ Hughes....
>It's not an old battery, and it holds its charge for ages, so long as we
>stay away from TJ's...
>Could this be the alarm sensor?...And if so, how on earth does it suck
>electricity which I have paid for from a battery?
The sensors work by creating an electromagnetic field around them
which interact with the groceries to monitor the stress levels in
them. Stolen groceries register a higher stress level and trigger the
alarm .
The sensors are battery powered in case of a power failure in the shop
and are set to detect battery driven devices. When they detect such a
device the electromagnetic field sucks out part of their charge into
themselves so that they can continue working for long periods after a
power failure. This is also why batteries bought from supermarkets and
taken past sensors don't last as long as batteries bought elsewhere.
I always insist the batteries I buy are wrapped in tinfoil before I
take them out of the shop, but they usually just give me funny looks.
Svenne
Mike_B
<no....@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> writes
My understanding is that the law has changed to allow citizens arrest on
suspicion. The only argument really is whether the alarm, coupled with
your refusal to be searched and attempt to leave the store, would be
reason enough to from such a suspicion.
--
Mike_B
mogga
<saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>All you have done is refute things.
>How about you actually suggest an explanation as to why I am able to set off
>the alarms in certain shops when I'm not carrying something that bears an
>anti-theft tag.
>
Library books?
Flu jab?
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Cynic
<saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>On a slightly different, and less paranoid note, are there any electronics
>wizzards here who could explain this for me?
>I've already siad how the alarm sensors in a certain shop go off every time
>my wifes mobility scooter goes past them...But something else odd
>happens....
>Every time she goes through the sensors, her scooter judders, and after
>about 10 minutes, the battery dies completely...I mean totally drained....
>Even if we've just charged the battery up that morning, something drains it
>of all power, and the only common factor that I can think of is that alarm
>sensor at TJ Hughes....
>It's not an old battery, and it holds its charge for ages, so long as we
>stay away from TJ's...
>Could this be the alarm sensor?...And if so, how on earth does it suck
>electricity which I have paid for from a battery?
The sensors emit a fairly powerful lowish frequency electromagnetic
field. Modern mobility scooters have sophisicated digital electronic
battery charge & monitoring circuits.
The most likely explanation I can think of is that the field induces
some false signals into the electronic battery monitoring circuits
that makes it "think" that the battery is discharging rapidly. So you
get a false "low battery" indication, and perhaps the electronics is
programmed to cut off a battery that is low in order to prevent damage
by over-discharge.
If the battery had *really* discharged, its stored energy would have
to have gone somewhere. There's no way the energy could have been
transmitted into something the battery is not connected to, so some
part of the scooter would have had to get *very* hot!
--
Cynic
Mike Scott
> PDR wrote:
>> <boris.w...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ab1db3c7-567e-491b...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> I was in a supermarket today and when I was leaving the alarm went
>>> off
>>>
>>> It is my understanding that these alarms are triggered by security
>>> tags that have not been removed , however in this case a supermarket
>>> employee (probably CCTV operator) set off the alarm as I passed
>>> through the barrier - it was not activated by my bag although it was
>>> staged to look like my bag had set it off
>>
>> How do you know this? Is it definitely true or just an assumption?
>> These detectors DO suffer a highish rate of "false positives".
>
> Indeed.
> Every time my wifes mobility scooter goes into or out of TJ Hughes in town,
> something in the electrics sets off the alarms.
> I've seen mobile phones set them off.
> I've set them off when entering a shop, and the only thing I was carrying
> that I can imagine would possibly have set it off would have been my
> wristwatch.
I had the most intriguing episode in Hamleys a few years back. I had
some cables (from a computer fair) in a bag - they'd(**) somehow set off
the detector when I walked through one way, but not the other. The
direction of the bag was critical - never did find out why: I was so
puzzled I forgot to argue with the store security man(*), and just went
through the bag with him item by item, passing each through the
detector. Problem just "went away".
Wierd, and I'd have said electrically impossible. But there you go :-)
(**) I assume it was the cables!
(*) Interesting psychology - he suggested I might have a tag stuck to my
shoe. Of course I automatically at once checked both shoes; maybe actual
shoplifters behave differently?
--
Mike Scott (unet <at> scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England
M.I.5¾
before. It is true that a police officer can arrest on suspicion, but that
doesn't include the store security guard.
Cynic
wrote:
>My understanding is that the law has changed to allow citizens arrest on
>suspicion. The only argument really is whether the alarm, coupled with
>your refusal to be searched and attempt to leave the store, would be
>reason enough to from such a suspicion.
IIUC you may act on suspicion that the particular person is the
culprit, but you must *know* that a crime has actually taken place -
i.e. you may not arrest on suspicion that a crime may have occured.
--
Cynic
Mike_B
>
>"Mike_B" <use...@localhosts.net> wrote in message
>news:q29OcyOP...@localhosts.net...
So where S24A of PACE as amended by the Serious Organised Crime and
Police Act says that anybody can carry out an arrest where they have
reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is currently committing an
arrest able offence, why do you think that wouldn't that apply to a
store security guard who reasonably believes a person in the
circumstances above to be committing a crime of theft?
As I said, my understanding is that the only question is whether the
store guard in the circumstances described has reasonable grounds to
suspect a theft is being carried out.
--
Mike_B
bealoid
> bealoid wrote:
>> "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" <saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote
>> in news:fsvmhq$9sg$1...@aioe.org:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The sensors on these things work by detecting a signature from an
>>> RFID chip.
>>
>> No they don't, very few alarms are triggered by RFID tags.
>>
>>> The problem is, RFID chips exist in so many things nowadays,
>>
>> No they don't.
>>
>>> and even more things with electronic circuitry can simulate that
>>> signature...
>>
>> This is wrong however I interpret it; there's not much that
>> "simulates an RFID signature", there's not much that simulates the
>> response tags make when they enter the alarm-scanner field, etc.
>
> On the contrary, there's obviouusly a lot of things that simulate the
> response tags make when they enter the alarm-canner field.
There are two systems common in the UK (and neither is RFID).
Magnetic systems have a transmitter and receiver - they send a low
frequency signal and detect changes to that signal. "Magnetic tags" enter
the field, become "saturated" very quickly, causing the signal to change,
triggering the alarm.
So, if you have something that saturates very quickly and modifies the
recieved / transmitted signal you'll trigger a false alarm. Bits of metal
don't trigger the alarm, and common electronics shouldn't trigger the
alarms because the alarms are looking for signals less than 1 kHz.
EAS have a paper tag with an antenna and a diode (i think) that modify a
(something like 2 MHz? )radio frequency swept across them.
You'd have a weird watch or phone if it's got anything doing 2 MHz in -
phones go much much higher and watches don't go that high.
> If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't have the abundance of false
> alarms that we currently do.
Maybe thieves walk out at the same time as you do, using you as an
unwitting distraction. While you're there saying "but I haven't got
anything, was it my watch?" they're running off down the street.
> All you have done is refute things.
> How about you actually suggest an explanation as to why I am able to
> set off the alarms in certain shops when I'm not carrying something
> that bears an anti-theft tag.
I'm tempted to say "the metal plate in your head", but that's a bit mean.
Also, metal plates in heads dno't set off alarms.
Maybe you just have some item of clothing with a hidden, still activated,
tag? Or the shops you visit have been clumsy with their positioning and
other people accidentally trigger the alarm?
bealoid
news:uy3P9AYn...@localhosts.net:
[snip]
> So where S24A of PACE as amended by the Serious Organised Crime and
> Police Act says that anybody can carry out an arrest where they have
> reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is currently committing an
> arrest able offence, why do you think that wouldn't that apply to a
> store security guard who reasonably believes a person in the
> circumstances above to be committing a crime of theft?
Does it say that? I thought it says that police officers can arrest for
suspicion, but that a citizens arrest is only lawful if the offence is
indictable and if the offence has actually happened.
Mike_B
<sig...@bealoid.co.uk> writes
S24A
24A Arrest without warrant: other persons
(1) A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant-
(a) anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be
committing an indictable offence.
(2) Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than
a constable may arrest without a warrant-
(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of
it.
(3) But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2)
is exercisable only if-
(a) the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing
that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary
to arrest the person in question; and
(b) it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably
practicable for a constable to make it instead.
(4) The reasons are to prevent the person in question-
(a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b) suffering physical injury;
(c) causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him."
So section 1(b) allows for arrest on suspicion that a crime is being
committed provided that there is no police officer there who could carry
out the arrest and that the thief would make off before a policeman
arrives. I imagine that is the case in most stores where theft is
suspected by a security guard at the exit..
Again, the only question is whether the security guard has reasonable
ground to suspect the shopper is carrying out an act of theft in the
circumstances described.
--
Mike_B
Mike
boris.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
>Also note that CCTV operators can remotely override the checkouts -
>they can block credit cards so you could enter your PIN
>and think you have paid when the CCTV operator has blocked it and they
>were messing about with my credit card today
>
>Also there is a microphone in the checkout which can hear the
>customer , in a previous visit the checkout operator did not know why
>the checkout would not process my transaction - I said the CCTV
>operator is blocking it - they unblocked it as soon as they knew I was
>aware of their game
You are completely off your head on crack and I claim my five pounds
reward.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>There are two systems common in the UK (and neither is RFID).
>Magnetic systems have a transmitter and receiver - they send a low
>frequency signal and detect changes to that signal. "Magnetic tags" enter
>the field, become "saturated" very quickly, causing the signal to change,
>triggering the alarm.
>So, if you have something that saturates very quickly and modifies the
>recieved / transmitted signal you'll trigger a false alarm. Bits of metal
>don't trigger the alarm
They do if they have a low saturation theshhold.
>, and common electronics shouldn't trigger the
>alarms because the alarms are looking for signals less than 1 kHz.
>EAS have a paper tag with an antenna and a diode (i think) that modify a
>(something like 2 MHz? )radio frequency swept across them.
They don't necessarily have a diode - just an LC circuit.
>You'd have a weird watch or phone if it's got anything doing 2 MHz in -
>phones go much much higher and watches don't go that high.
But it is entirely possible to have an arragement that coincidentally
happens to resonate at about the same frequency as the tags. The
metal watchstrap or a bracelet, for example.
And phones most certainly *do* have signals all over the band, and may
well have signals at 2MHz. What frequency is the keyboard scanned at?
What frequency are the signals to the LCD display?
Not to mention the fact that the pulse-modulation of a phone can cause
interference in electronics to give a false trigger at a point in the
alarm electronics other than its 2MHz input.
--
Cynic
boris.w...@googlemail.com
> <boris.winkle...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> So you ignore the very likely scenario that there was something in your bag
> which set it off, and instead choose to believe it was some sort of
> conspiracy against you!
Firstly , I would like to thank everyone for their replies
It seems that a few of you are suggesting that I may be suffering from
a paranoid mental illness - great I could do with the DLA money is it
really that easy to convince people I am mad ?
However I am correct you see the alarm at the exit was not activated
by my bag or anything on me - the CCTV operator probably activated
it , then when I put the bag though the barrier again the alarm went
off again however after the security guard had looked in my bag I
passed through the barrier again and of course the alarm did not sound
this time
You ask which supermarket it was , well it was Tesco and I am not anti-
Tesco at all
I am sure that a lot of people on the newsgroup shop at Tesco so why
don't you ask the security guard next time you visit - or are you too
shy ?
ask whether the CCTV operator can override the checkout and set the
tag alarm off manually
someone on the newsgroup asked why I had shopping from the previous
day in my bag , I had some bananas I had purchased on the previous
day , as the Tesco I prefer to use is not near my flat I buy the
bananas in the evening on my way home for consumption on the following
day
so do you think it is acceptable practice by the supermarket ?
as far as refusing searches etc is concerned , people will say that
they will exercise their rights and I have done so in the past eg in
St Helens library and the off licence opposite Paddington station but
in this case it was good humoured and I have my image to consider
In other words - what would you do if you were with your wife/partner
when this happened ?
I think that being calm and good humoured is the best policy - would
causing a scene would embarrass your partner
I am single , but understand that the supermarket is a good place to
meet women
I had a random terrorism search recently and still have paperwork - so
you can ask me what is on form if you think I am living in cloud
cuckoo land
I just see it as an opportunity to have a conversation rather than an
inconvenience
(not quite so) Fat Sam
Well something sets it off...
Oh wait, perhaps it's all in my head...Perhaps it never happened at all,
because you claim it isn't possible..
Yes, that'll be it....
Occams razor and all that gubbins...
(not quite so) Fat Sam
Well, so far you haven't said anything that convinces me that some maniacal
security guard was tracking you around the store on CCTV with his finger
poised over the big red "Alarm" button, waiting for you to pass through the
doors.
You've declared that this was what happened.
You've insisted that you know this was what happened.
But you still haven't told us why.
Alex Heney
wrote:
There would be no possibility of doing so in the situation described.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't let school interfere with your education.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
<no....@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mike_B" <use...@localhosts.net> wrote in message
>news:q29OcyOP...@localhosts.net...
>> In message <47f377e3$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>, M.I.5ž
His understanding is completely correct.
The law on "citizen's arrest" changed with the Serious Organised Crime
and Police Act 2005, that section of which (section 110) came into
force in January last year.
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_10#pt3-pb1-l1g110>
It is the replacement for Section 24A(1)(b) of PACE which is relevant
here.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
No! No! Windows isn't a virus. Viruses do something.
Alex Heney
wrote:
Nope.
That changed in January 2007, when Section 110 of the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 came into force.
If you have reasonable grounds for suspicion that somebody is
committing an indictable offence, you can arrest them.
While most of the people here seem to think that an alarm going off
coupled with refusal to allow your bags to be checked would not be
sufficient grounds, I rather thank a court would disagree, and would
not find somebody who acted on those grounds guilty of false arrest.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Never put off till tomorrow what you can ignore entirely.
Alex Heney
boris.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
>On 2 Apr, 12:31, "Mark Hewitt" <nom...@here.com> wrote:
>> <boris.winkle...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
>>
>> So you ignore the very likely scenario that there was something in your bag
>> which set it off, and instead choose to believe it was some sort of
>> conspiracy against you!
>
>Firstly , I would like to thank everyone for their replies
>
>It seems that a few of you are suggesting that I may be suffering from
>a paranoid mental illness - great I could do with the DLA money is it
>really that easy to convince people I am mad ?
>
>However I am correct you see the alarm at the exit was not activated
>by my bag or anything on me - the CCTV operator probably activated
>it ,
I would be amazed if there is a single store in the country where that
can be done.
The alarm is controlled by the sensors, and cannot be triggered
remotely in most stores.
Which is reasonable, since there would be no point whatsoever in them
doing so. the CCTV operators (in stores large enough to have
continuous monitoring) will be in radio contact with the security
guards, and can have you stopped perfectly easily without resorting to
loud alarms.
>
>ask whether the CCTV operator can override the checkout and set the
>tag alarm off manually
Why don't you ask?
You will find they can't.
>
>someone on the newsgroup asked why I had shopping from the previous
>day in my bag , I had some bananas I had purchased on the previous
>day , as the Tesco I prefer to use is not near my flat I buy the
>bananas in the evening on my way home for consumption on the following
>day
>
>so do you think it is acceptable practice by the supermarket ?
>
I don't think anybody else here believes for one moment it occurred
the way you believe it did, so the question of whether that would be
acceptable practice doesn't enter into it.
>
>as far as refusing searches etc is concerned , people will say that
>they will exercise their rights and I have done so in the past eg in
>St Helens library and the off licence opposite Paddington station but
>in this case it was good humoured and I have my image to consider
>
>In other words - what would you do if you were with your wife/partner
>when this happened ?
>
I would always allow my bags to be checked, because it will usually
result in less hassle and being able to leave more quickly.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Minds are like parachutes, they only work when open.
Mike_B
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:00:50 +0100, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:44:02 GMT, Mike_B <use...@localhosts.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>My understanding is that the law has changed to allow citizens arrest on
>>>suspicion. The only argument really is whether the alarm, coupled with
>>>your refusal to be searched and attempt to leave the store, would be
>>>reason enough to from such a suspicion.
>>
>>IIUC you may act on suspicion that the particular person is the
>>culprit, but you must *know* that a crime has actually taken place -
>>i.e. you may not arrest on suspicion that a crime may have occured.
>
>Nope.
>
>That changed in January 2007, when Section 110 of the Serious
>Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 came into force.
>
>If you have reasonable grounds for suspicion that somebody is
>committing an indictable offence, you can arrest them.
>
>While most of the people here seem to think that an alarm going off
>coupled with refusal to allow your bags to be checked would not be
>sufficient grounds, I rather thank a court would disagree, and would
>not find somebody who acted on those grounds guilty of false arrest.
Much as I would love to hear a successful argument in such a case, I too
find it difficult to believe that a court would find against the
security guard in the circumstances.
--
Mike_B
The Todal
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:9bv7v35nog5i7df11...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:12:16 +0100, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike_B" <use...@localhosts.net> wrote in message
>>news:Epe1r2GC...@localhosts.net...
>>> In message <Xns9A746FCFDE...@69.16.176.253>, bealoid
>>> <sig...@bealoid.co.uk> writes
>>>>boris.w...@googlemail.com wrote in news:ab1db3c7-567e-491b-8a2d-
>>>>9330f2...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> I was in a supermarket today and when I was leaving the alarm went
>>>>> off
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>> The security guard asked to see the contents of my bag
>>>>
>>>>You don't have to let them look at your bag. You could ask them to call
>>>>the police to check your bag. You could just ignore them and walk out.
>>>
>>> At that point they stop you and hold you on suspicion of theft until a
>>> policeman arrives.
>>
>>And then you collect a nice award of damages later. A win-win situation.
>>
>
> There would be no possibility of doing so in the situation described.
On the contrary, victory would be certain in the situation described.
The Todal
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:00:50 +0100, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:44:02 GMT, Mike_B <use...@localhosts.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>My understanding is that the law has changed to allow citizens arrest on
>>>suspicion. The only argument really is whether the alarm, coupled with
>>>your refusal to be searched and attempt to leave the store, would be
>>>reason enough to from such a suspicion.
>>
>>IIUC you may act on suspicion that the particular person is the
>>culprit, but you must *know* that a crime has actually taken place -
>>i.e. you may not arrest on suspicion that a crime may have occured.
>
> Nope.
>
> That changed in January 2007, when Section 110 of the Serious
> Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 came into force.
>
> If you have reasonable grounds for suspicion that somebody is
> committing an indictable offence, you can arrest them.
>
> While most of the people here seem to think that an alarm going off
> coupled with refusal to allow your bags to be checked would not be
> sufficient grounds, I rather thank a court would disagree, and would
> not find somebody who acted on those grounds guilty of false arrest.
I think it would be well worth testing the point in court. The idea that
store detectives can in theory stand around doing nothing, and merely detain
everyone who sets off their alarm at the door, is to me a preposterous one
and I feel sure that a district judge would agree. And basing your suspicion
on the basis that someone refuses to stop and be searched? Some people
actually have other things to do rather than submit to a humiliating search
on the whim of a store detective.
The Todal
I think everyone who is forced to submit to a search should sue in the small
claims court, and I believe most would win (always assuming of course that
the *only* evidence was the store alarm, and they weren't seen behaving
suspiciously in other ways).
I am confident that the stores would settle most claims out of court and
would change their ways.
Mike_B
<deadm...@beeb.net> writes
So do you believe that they would win in court, or that they would win
by virtue of the fact that the stores would want to avoid court?
I can see that the wish to leave the store without having ones bags
checked is actually the normal state of affairs for everybody who goes
shopping, so those things are certainly not in themselves cause for
suspicion. In that case, the only difference would be the alarm sounding
at the door. However, once the alarm has sounded, could that fact
combine with the wish to leave without being searched to create
sufficient suspicion?
--
Mike_B
Mike Scott
...
> If you have reasonable grounds for suspicion that somebody is
> committing an indictable offence, you can arrest them.
If you don't /know/ that an offence has been committed though, can you
possibly have reasonable grounds for suspecting someone has committed it?
For example, a total stranger is seen leaving my elderly neighbour's
house carrying a large (and very full) bag. Do I arrest him on suspicion
of theft?
judith
wrote:
I would think that the number of false alarms every day of the week
give no reasonable grounds to think that a theft has been committed.
Mike_B
<judit...@live.co.uk> writes
>I would think that the number of false alarms every day of the week
>give no reasonable grounds to think that a theft has been committed.
Yes, I think that line of thought would certainly be the start of an
argument as to whether the alarm gives reasonable suspicion. I'm just
mindful of the fact that small claims are often extremely informal, and
DJs often seem to decide them less on technical points and more on what
they see as a "common sense" approach. I even recall one district judge
telling the solicitor for the claimant to shut up and stop quoting law
at him.
A correct approach might be to ask the customer to agree to a search. If
not, then to ask them to agree to wait until a policeman arrives. I
suspect a judge might think that having had the alarm, having had a
refusal of a search and having had a refusal to wait for a policeman
that reasonable suspicion may have been formed and that to find
otherwise would largely negate the point of having alarms and security
guards.
--
Mike_B
The Todal
> In message <jvb9v39ue26fr430c...@4ax.com>, judith
> <judit...@live.co.uk> writes
>
>>I would think that the number of false alarms every day of the week give
>>no reasonable grounds to think that a theft has been committed.
>
> Yes, I think that line of thought would certainly be the start of an
> argument as to whether the alarm gives reasonable suspicion. I'm just
> mindful of the fact that small claims are often extremely informal, and
> DJs often seem to decide them less on technical points and more on what
> they see as a "common sense" approach. I even recall one district judge
> telling the solicitor for the claimant to shut up and stop quoting law at
> him.
>
> A correct approach might be to ask the customer to agree to a search.
Just because the alarm has gone off and for no other reason?
I don't find that reasonable. Nor would most retailers, given the number of
times I have seen the alarm triggered at Virgin Megastores or HMV or
numerous other places and the customer is reassured they can ignore it.
> If not, then to ask them to agree to wait until a policeman arrives.
The customer, by "agreeing to wait" might thereby be waiving his rights in
respect of the false imprisonment/unlawful arrest. So the customer should at
the very least say "I am not willing to stay here. If you tell me I must
stay here, I do so under protest".
> I suspect a judge might think that having had the alarm, having had a
> refusal of a search and having had a refusal to wait for a policeman that
> reasonable suspicion may have been formed and that to find otherwise would
> largely negate the point of having alarms and security guards.
The alarms are there to deter thieves, not to catch them. The security
guards are supposed to look for people actually thieving from the store and
detain them if they have been seen thieving. It's not like an airport, where
you go through the scanner and then submit to a search because the machine
went bleep.
What if they ask for your receipt and you say "no, I don't have it. I
crumpled it up and tossed it onto the ground". Are you going to say that
this constitutes reasonable suspicion of theft, by itself? I don't think
so. I would expect a judge to have every sympathy with the customer.
Mike_B
<deadm...@beeb.net> writes
>
>"Mike_B" <use...@localhosts.net> wrote in message
>news:G7yVvJ20...@localhosts.net...
>> In message <jvb9v39ue26fr430c...@4ax.com>, judith
>> <judit...@live.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>I would think that the number of false alarms every day of the week give
>>>no reasonable grounds to think that a theft has been committed.
>>
>> Yes, I think that line of thought would certainly be the start of an
>> argument as to whether the alarm gives reasonable suspicion. I'm just
>> mindful of the fact that small claims are often extremely informal, and
>> DJs often seem to decide them less on technical points and more on what
>> they see as a "common sense" approach. I even recall one district judge
>> telling the solicitor for the claimant to shut up and stop quoting law at
>> him.
>>
>> A correct approach might be to ask the customer to agree to a search.
>
>Just because the alarm has gone off and for no other reason?
>
>I don't find that reasonable. Nor would most retailers, given the number of
>times I have seen the alarm triggered at Virgin Megastores or HMV or
>numerous other places and the customer is reassured they can ignore it.
>
I really haven't developed a firm position on this either way, which is
why I would love to see a case brought and argued however, the alarm
systems are there for a reason and one thing that can set them off is a
customer who is trying to leave the store with goods that still have a
security tag on them. The security tag is certainly not the customer's
property and it would therefore seem entirely reasonable to wish to find
out if there is one and remove it.
>> If not, then to ask them to agree to wait until a policeman arrives.
>
>The customer, by "agreeing to wait" might thereby be waiving his rights in
>respect of the false imprisonment/unlawful arrest. So the customer should at
>the very least say "I am not willing to stay here. If you tell me I must
>stay here, I do so under protest".
>
Well, one of the potential conditions that would help in arguing that an
arrest was lawful would be if without it, the person would make off
before a policeman arrives (PACE s24A (4)(d)) .
Without checking if the customer is prepared to wait for a policeman
voluntarily, one could never show that this condition had been met.
>> I suspect a judge might think that having had the alarm, having had a
>> refusal of a search and having had a refusal to wait for a policeman that
>> reasonable suspicion may have been formed and that to find otherwise would
>> largely negate the point of having alarms and security guards.
>
>The alarms are there to deter thieves, not to catch them. The security
>guards are supposed to look for people actually thieving from the store and
>detain them if they have been seen thieving. It's not like an airport, where
>you go through the scanner and then submit to a search because the machine
>went bleep.
>
>What if they ask for your receipt and you say "no, I don't have it. I
>crumpled it up and tossed it onto the ground". Are you going to say that
>this constitutes reasonable suspicion of theft, by itself? I don't think
>so. I would expect a judge to have every sympathy with the customer.
>
So we would have;
1. Alarm goes off. We aren't sure if this is cause for suspicion, but a
search would enable us to see if a security tag is still on an article.
2. Customer refuses search.
3. Customer refuses to wait for a policeman.
4. Customer does not have a receipt for the goods he is taking from the
store.
I juts find it hard to believe that a DJ would think that everyone
should simply be allowed to walk out of the store in those
circumstances.
--
Mike_B
bealoid
news:65jsj5F...@mid.individual.net:
[snip]
> What if they ask for your receipt and you say "no, I don't have it. I
> crumpled it up and tossed it onto the ground".
BAM - £70 fixed penalty if it landed on the pavement outside the store.
Cynic
boris.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
>However I am correct you see the alarm at the exit was not activated
>by my bag or anything on me - the CCTV operator probably activated
>it , then when I put the bag though the barrier again the alarm went
>off again however after the security guard had looked in my bag I
>passed through the barrier again and of course the alarm did not sound
>this time
I can well believe that a CCTV operator or other store employee could
cause the door alarm to sound via a manual activation. It would be a
sensible arrangement.
What I do *not* believe is that there is any way for a store employee
to remotely cause a PIN terminal to reject the card. If it is
considered to be necessary to delay a shopper at the checkout (and I
cannot see any sensible reason that a store would want or need to do
that), the till operator could be alerted to delay competing the
transaction.
--
Cynic
Jethro
> >However I am correct you see the alarm at the exit was not activated
> >by my bag or anything on me - the CCTV operator probably activated
> >it , then when I put the bag though the barrier again the alarm went
> >off again however after the security guard had looked in my bag I
> >passed through the barrier again and of course the alarm did not sound
> >this time
>
> I can well believe that a CCTV operator or other store employee could
> cause the door alarm to sound via a manual activation. It would be a
> sensible arrangement.
>
> What I do *not* believe is that there is any way for a store employee
> to remotely cause a PIN terminal to reject the card.
Why not ? It's not as if PIN terminals haven't already been hacked in
other ways. True, I can't see a store employing this as a technique to
prevent customers leaving, but it should be *technically* possible.
Cynic
wrote:
>I would be amazed if there is a single store in the country where that
>can be done.
>The alarm is controlled by the sensors, and cannot be triggered
>remotely in most stores.
How would you know whether they could or could not be triggered
remotely?
>Which is reasonable, since there would be no point whatsoever in them
>doing so. the CCTV operators (in stores large enough to have
>continuous monitoring) will be in radio contact with the security
>guards, and can have you stopped perfectly easily without resorting to
>loud alarms.
I can easily imagine why the alarm would make the job easier. ISTM
that it is the easiest way to stop & search a customer who has aroused
suspicion without upsetting that customer should they be innocent.
1) Alarm goes off. Apologetic security guard stops customer, and
while implying that it is almost certainly a false alarm, explains
that store policy dictates that his bags must be checked. The
customer's reaction to the alarm can also be guaged, and might even be
used to decide whether or not to search at all. Innocent customer is
likely to see himself as being a victim of circumstance and/or
unreliable technology.
2) No alarm, but customer is stopped by security guard who explains
that the customer was seen acting suspiciously and so they are going
to search his bags. Innocent customer is likely to see himself as
having been victimised by the staff. Especially if he is the only
Black/Asian/Muslim customer in the store at the time.
Of course there are other ways to go about it - the guard could tell
the customer that it is a "random search" instead of saying that they
are suspicious - but then the customer could say, "Sorry, I'm in a
hurry," and the guard would have blown any legitimate grounds for
insisting on detaining the customer.
Manual activation of the alarm just seems to me to be the easiest
solution to the problem of stopping a customer who you have suspicions
about.
--
Cynic
Steve
news:ab1db3c7-567e-491b...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> I suggested to the security guard that the alarm had been activated by
> the supermarket staff on purpose just so they could look in my bag but
> he denied it
You're paranoid, they can't activate them remotely.
--
Steve
goo...@woodall.me.uk
> On 2 Apr, 01:27, boris.winkle...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > I had shopping from the previous day in my bag - I suppose it was
> > fortunate that the receipts for the goods were in my bag
>
> That might be a bit unusual for supermarket produce. Could this have
> been noticed by security staff or at checkout? It might understandably
> have raised suspicions, particularly if they were the supermarkets own-
> brand goods.
>
Not necessarily.
Not so long ago I bought a gps and micro-sd card from a shop on
Tottenham Court Road. Next two shops I went into the alarm went off.
Went back to the original shop - they didn't have an alarm and didn't
use these tags. Spend the rest of the day setting off alarms in
various shops. Several of them tried to deactivate my purchases for me
but it never seemed to work.
When I got home I found the tag in the sealed blister pack for the
micro-sd. So it's obvious that the tag was added by the manufacturer.
Tim.
Cynic
<jeth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I can well believe that a CCTV operator or other store employee could
>> cause the door alarm to sound via a manual activation. It would be a
>> sensible arrangement.
>>
>> What I do *not* believe is that there is any way for a store employee
>> to remotely cause a PIN terminal to reject the card.
>
>Why not ? It's not as if PIN terminals haven't already been hacked in
>other ways. True, I can't see a store employing this as a technique to
>prevent customers leaving, but it should be *technically* possible.
I was not talking about unauthorised hacking, but a deliberate
installation by the store. Not because I don't think that a store
would be capable of doing such a thing, but because it seems
completely pointless to me.
--
Cynic
boris.w...@googlemail.com
>
> I can well believe that a CCTV operator or other store employee could
> cause the door alarm to sound via a manual activation. It would be a
> sensible arrangement.
>
> What I do *not* believe is that there is any way for a store employee
> to remotely cause a PIN terminal to reject the card. If it is
> considered to be necessary to delay a shopper at the checkout (and I
> cannot see any sensible reason that a store would want or need to do
> that), the till operator could be alerted to delay competing the
> transaction.
>
> --
> Cynic
Well you seem to be the only other person on this thread who agrees
that the door alarm can be activated by other methods rather than
purely the tags and of course it is obvious that the same alarm can be
used for other issues that require an alarm to sound , rather than
installing separate alarms for every issue - except the fire alarm I
assume
You say you do not believe that the CCTV operator can override the
checkout equipment , they can block coupons to stop them from
registering - so the coupon cannot be scanned I can state that as fact
PIN terminal interference - I cannot state as a fact they can do this
and my opinion is based on the coupon scenario above
Don't you think is possible to "turn off" the PIN terminal so that
there is a "communication error" haven't you experienced that before
when there has been a genuine fault with the connection?
By blaming the delay on PIN terminal communication error they can
delay the customer without causing offence by accusing the customer of
something and there was an error message on the PIN terminal in this
case
As previously stated I put my bag on a shelf in the store in order to
rumble around for the 50p beer coupon so the CCTV operator may have
thought that I had put something in my bag and may have been
scrutinising the CCTV footage and wished to buy extra time
The security guard was not offensive and I had nothing to hide , I was
not in a hurry so didn't mind chatting as it gives me the opportunity
to ask questions about the equipment , likewise the earlier terrorism
act search gave me the opportunity to ask questions
Some Tesco stores require the customer's name and address when
returning goods and some do not - they do not all act in the same way
It is a matter of concern that a shop can cause the "tag alarm" to
sound independently of a "tag" setting it off and use that as an
excuse to stop a customer - and You agree that this can happen
Others had said that this can be used as a reasonable suspicion to
arrest - good isn't it ?
So does the "alarm equipment" keep a record of what has set it off ?
in the same way that automatic ticket barriers at train stations seem
to record the details of the tickets used - I assume thats what is on
the computer monitors near the barriers on LUL are and Oyster keeps
records
So even if you think I am a loony you will agree the store can
fabricate suspicion
I can confirm that a security alert message was made via the load
speaker - code 50 or something and the staff were waiting at the
entrance so it was a set up , I can also confirm that I am a
distinctive person and therefore am of interest to watch
Cynic
boris.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
>You say you do not believe that the CCTV operator can override the
>checkout equipment , they can block coupons to stop them from
>registering - so the coupon cannot be scanned I can state that as fact
Apples and oranges. There is a legitimate reason for reprogramming
the tills so that certain codes are invalidated (though it would not
be done by the security staff). Perhaps the coupons have gone out of
date. Perhaps there have been reports of fraudulent copies of
coupons. Tills must be reprogrammed regularly in the course of normal
trading so the infrastructure is in place anyway
>PIN terminal interference - I cannot state as a fact they can do this
>and my opinion is based on the coupon scenario above
So it is unsupported supposition. The PIN terminal is an entirely
separate piece of equipment to the POS terminal.
>Don't you think is possible to "turn off" the PIN terminal so that
>there is a "communication error" haven't you experienced that before
>when there has been a genuine fault with the connection?
Undoubtedly it is possible to switch off the communication between the
PIN terminal and the banking network. Usually simply by unplugging a
phone line or a LAN plug. I cannot think of any reason why a store
would want to do so deliberately.
>By blaming the delay on PIN terminal communication error they can
>delay the customer without causing offence by accusing the customer of
>something and there was an error message on the PIN terminal in this
>case
But what do you claim is the purpose for stores to do such a thing
deliberately? It was almost certainly a case of genuine communication
error - I have experienced it quite a few times, especially in places
that rely on a dial-up connection to the card issuer, and I have also
been delayed for a long time while the terminal redials several times.
The till operator is usually the person most annoyed by the delays.
Most supermarkets have a much faster data connection these days that
is permanently on (probably via the Internet), but it can still suffer
interruptions in service - and so can the equipment at the
card-issuers end. So customers with Visa cards may be going through
with no problems whilst an Amex card gets delayed due to problems at
Amex. I was once asked if I had a different card or other means of
payment because of a known outage at a card issuer's data centre.
>So does the "alarm equipment" keep a record of what has set it off ?
>in the same way that automatic ticket barriers at train stations seem
>to record the details of the tickets used - I assume thats what is on
>the computer monitors near the barriers on LUL are and Oyster keeps
>records
No, unlike an Oyster card, the security tags do not contain any data
(they are *not* RFID tags), and the only information they can pass is
"I am an intact security tag". It is not possible to determine which
item the security tag might be attached to, or even how many active
tags are in the bag.
--
Cynic
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:9bv7v35nog5i7df11...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:12:16 +0100, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike_B" <use...@localhosts.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Epe1r2GC...@localhosts.net...
>>>> In message <Xns9A746FCFDE...@69.16.176.253>, bealoid
>>>> <sig...@bealoid.co.uk> writes
>>>>>boris.w...@googlemail.com wrote in news:ab1db3c7-567e-491b-8a2d-
>>>>>9330f2...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was in a supermarket today and when I was leaving the alarm went
>>>>>> off
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> The security guard asked to see the contents of my bag
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't have to let them look at your bag. You could ask them to call
>>>>>the police to check your bag. You could just ignore them and walk out.
>>>>
>>>> At that point they stop you and hold you on suspicion of theft until a
>>>> policeman arrives.
>>>
>>>And then you collect a nice award of damages later. A win-win situation.
>>>
>>
>> There would be no possibility of doing so in the situation described.
>
>On the contrary, victory would be certain in the situation described.
>
On what grounds?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Common sense is what tells you the world is flat.
Alex Heney
wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>>>While most of the people here seem to think that an alarm going off
>>>coupled with refusal to allow your bags to be checked would not be
>>>sufficient grounds, I rather thank a court would disagree, and would
>>>not find somebody who acted on those grounds guilty of false arrest.
>>
>> Much as I would love to hear a successful argument in such a case, I too
>> find it difficult to believe that a court would find against the security
>> guard in the circumstances.
>
>I think everyone who is forced to submit to a search should sue in the small
>claims court, and I believe most would win (always assuming of course that
>the *only* evidence was the store alarm, and they weren't seen behaving
>suspiciously in other ways).
>
>I am confident that the stores would settle most claims out of court and
>would change their ways.
>
While many stores undoubtedly would settle out of court, I am sure
some wouldn't.
And I would be very surprised indeed if any of them managed to lose a
court case on this.
As I see it, there are two possibilities for court action of some
sort.
1. Criminal prosecution of the store/guard for false arrest. I don't
think there would be a cat in hell's chance of success on this one,
since the prosecution would have to prove BRD that there were no
"reasonable grounds for suspicion".
2. Damages for lost time awarded in favour of the customer who was
stopped. He would, of course, have to show that the store acted
negligently or maliciously in stopping him, and it really is very hard
to see how that could be proved, even on the balance of probabilities
necessary for a civil case.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
High message: 9434567. Message last read: 9.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
While I am very close to certain he wouldn't.
But even if he did, I'm not sure what he would be expected to do about
it.
The general rule of UK civil law is that damages are awarded only to
compensate for actual losses, and only those losses foreseeable and
directly attributable to the wrongful action.
So in the unlikely even that the DJ did decide that the store or guard
were negligent or malicious in stopping the customer, he would
probably award about Ł10 for half an hour of lost time.
> And basing your suspicion
>on the basis that someone refuses to stop and be searched?
As I said in my previous post, many people on here think that is not
reasonable.
I do not think most of the people on here are representative of either
the population at large, or (more importantly) of the courts.
> Some people
>actually have other things to do rather than submit to a humiliating search
>on the whim of a store detective.
>
I am 100% certain that just about everybody has better things to do.
So what?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The world is so big and so global now.
Alex Heney
<usen...@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>...
>> If you have reasonable grounds for suspicion that somebody is
>> committing an indictable offence, you can arrest them.
>
>If you don't /know/ that an offence has been committed though, can you
>possibly have reasonable grounds for suspecting someone has committed it?
>
There is no "it".
You can, of course, have perfectly reasonable grounds for suspicion
that somebody is committing a crime without knowing for sure that a
crime is being committed.
>For example, a total stranger is seen leaving my elderly neighbour's
>house carrying a large (and very full) bag. Do I arrest him on suspicion
>of theft?
That is your decision.
If you do, and he makes a complaint of wrongful arrest, then it would
be up to them to prove BRD that you did NOT have reasonable grounds
for suspicion.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I haven't lost my mind, I know exactly where I left it.
(not quite so) Fat Sam
> On 3 Apr, 14:13, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I can well believe that a CCTV operator or other store employee could
>> cause the door alarm to sound via a manual activation. It would be a
>> sensible arrangement.
>>
>> What I do *not* believe is that there is any way for a store employee
>> to remotely cause a PIN terminal to reject the card. If it is
>> considered to be necessary to delay a shopper at the checkout (and I
>> cannot see any sensible reason that a store would want or need to do
>> that), the till operator could be alerted to delay competing the
>> transaction.
>>
>> --
>> Cynic
>
> Well you seem to be the only other person on this thread who agrees
> that the door alarm can be activated by other methods rather than
> purely the tags and of course it is obvious that the same alarm can be
> used for other issues that require an alarm to sound , rather than
> installing separate alarms for every issue - except the fire alarm I
> assume
>
> You say you do not believe that the CCTV operator can override the
> checkout equipment , they can block coupons to stop them from
> registering - so the coupon cannot be scanned I can state that as fact
Saying you can state something as a fact doesn't make it a fact.
Please tell us how you know this to be a fact.
Cynic
<saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>> You say you do not believe that the CCTV operator can override the
>> checkout equipment , they can block coupons to stop them from
>> registering - so the coupon cannot be scanned I can state that as fact
>
>Saying you can state something as a fact doesn't make it a fact.
>Please tell us how you know this to be a fact.
Well *I* know that it is a fact. The till scans a barcode, which
simply gives it the numerical code for the item scanned. The only way
that the till "knows" whether it has just scanned a banana or a coupon
is by looking up the code on a database. The database can (obviously)
be updated by store employees. So it follows that the database entry
of the code for a coupon can be modified or deleted altogether.
--
Cynic
boris.w...@googlemail.com
<samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You say you do not believe that the CCTV operator can override the
> > checkout equipment , they can block coupons to stop them from
> > registering - so the coupon cannot be scanned I can state that as fact
>
> Saying you can state something as a fact doesn't make it a fact.
> Please tell us how you know this to be a fact.- Hide quoted text -
>
is it that important to prove that it is fact when it is unlikely that
anyone else can disprove it ? , since it only serves to clog up the
newsgroup and isn't central to the issue
a customer may wish to purchase their shopping in two transactions
using two checkouts and uses the same coupon at each checkout , the
checkout equipment accepts the coupon for the first transaction but
not the second transaction
using two checkouts attracts the attention of the CCTV operator and he/
she overrides the checkout equipment for the second transaction
Funny thing is the checkout operator didn't seem to know what had
happened - the coupon worked after I mentioned that the CCTV operator
had probably remotely blocked the coupon
you may well laugh - but do you know what button the checkout operator
has to press to get the coupon to work ? , if so name the button (clue
- five letter word) , then you have to consider the on screen error
messages which you won't get if the barcode is not detected or smudged
so you can rule out those possibilities
If you or other newsgroup users aren't more knowledgeable on the
supermarket equipment I don't see the point in saying I am wrong - for
example I have my DPA records and kwow what info is held eg I am
classed as a "small basket shopper"
microphones in the checkout equipment spying on the staff and
customers - far fetched ? lol -but then of course Lidl was in the
news recently for spying on its staff
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/27/germany.supermarkets
The main issue here is that security staff can activate the alarm
under the pretence of the "tag" setting it off and that is a falsehood
presumably security staff give evidence in Court and are considered to
be credible witnesses and the sort of people they give evidence
against may well have previous convictions and be considered less
credible
fortunately I do not fall into this category
boris.w...@googlemail.com
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:10:54 +0100, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam"
>
Each coupon barcode symbolises the items reference number and value
A coupon barcode is an EAN/UCC-13 and is constructed as follows :
The first 6 digits will be your 6 digit coupon issuer number (which
always begins with 99).
The 7th to 9th digits will be your campaign number - from one issuer
number you can allocate up to 999 campaigns, your first campaign will
therefore start 001 then 002 and so on.
The 10th to 12th digits will be the value of the coupon (without the
decimal point), for example £1 will be shown as 100.
Digit 13 will be your check digit. To calculate this you can log on to
the gs1uk web site www.gs1uk.org and click on the Quick Link to the
check digit calculator. You can now type your 12 digits in the
allocate space beside GTIN-13 and it will automatically create your
check digit for your EAN13 barcode. (GTIN stands for Global Trade Item
Number and refers to the 13 digit number, whereas EAN refers to the
image).
boris.w...@googlemail.com
>
> If you do, and he makes a complaint of wrongful arrest, then it would
> be up to them to prove BRD that you did NOT have reasonable grounds
> for suspicion.
> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
I thought the burden was on the person carrying out the arrest to
prove it was lawful - rather than the arrestee to prove it was
unlawful in tort
or have I misinterpreted your post ?
Cynic
boris.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> Well *I* know that it is a fact. The till scans a barcode, which
>> simply gives it the numerical code for the item scanned. The only way
>> that the till "knows" whether it has just scanned a banana or a coupon
>> is by looking up the code on a database. The database can (obviously)
>> be updated by store employees. So it follows that the database entry
>> of the code for a coupon can be modified or deleted altogether.
>Each coupon barcode symbolises the items reference number and value
I am well aware of the various breakdowns in a number of barcode
formats.
>A coupon barcode is an EAN/UCC-13 and is constructed as follows :
A store is free to issue a coupon with any barcode format it wishes,
though most will elect to conform to a standard.
>The first 6 digits will be your 6 digit coupon issuer number (which
>always begins with 99).
Which will be looked up in a database if the till needs it.
>The 7th to 9th digits will be your campaign number - from one issuer
>number you can allocate up to 999 campaigns, your first campaign will
>therefore start 001 then 002 and so on.
Which will be looked up in a database if the till needs it.
>The 10th to 12th digits will be the value of the coupon (without the
>decimal point), for example £1 will be shown as 100.
Which might be extracted algorithmicly, or could be part of a
database.
It is the database that will tell the till whether the coupon is valid
at that particular store on that particular date.
--
Cynic
Cynic
boris.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
>On 3 Apr, 22:10, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam"
><samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>is it that important to prove that it is fact when it is unlikely that
>anyone else can disprove it ?
Absolutely. I could dream up all sorts of unlikely assertions that
could not be disproven. For that reason, in general, the onus is upon
the person making the assertion to provide evidence that it is true.
>a customer may wish to purchase their shopping in two transactions
>using two checkouts and uses the same coupon at each checkout , the
>checkout equipment accepts the coupon for the first transaction but
>not the second transaction
>
>using two checkouts attracts the attention of the CCTV operator and he/
>she overrides the checkout equipment for the second transaction
No need in that case for manual intervention. The database can be
updated automatically to mark a coupon as "used" and alert the till
operator to a duplicate use or disallow the transaction. Involving a
manual action in the middle is a completely unnecesary and
counter-productive complication.
--
Cynic
judith
<boris.w...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ea228010-2519-4734...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> If you or other newsgroup users aren't more knowledgeable on the
> supermarket equipment I don't see the point in saying I am wrong - for
> example I have my DPA records and kwow what info is held eg I am
> classed as a "small basket shopper"
Surely it was "small basket case"?
judith
wrote:
Any chance of using a different posting name - I would hate to take
the credit for your words of wisdom.
Martin
I must admit to having to blink and read that bit again
>
>
(not quite so) Fat Sam
> On 3 Apr, 22:10, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam"
> <samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>> You say you do not believe that the CCTV operator can override the
>>> checkout equipment , they can block coupons to stop them from
>>> registering - so the coupon cannot be scanned I can state that as
>>> fact
>>
>> Saying you can state something as a fact doesn't make it a fact.
>> Please tell us how you know this to be a fact.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>
> is it that important to prove that it is fact when it is unlikely that
> anyone else can disprove it ? , since it only serves to clog up the
> newsgroup and isn't central to the issue
Well I tend to feel the weight of responsibility lies with you to provide
proof, seeing as you're the one who started a thread with a seemingly
preposterous statement.
I say *seemingly* preposterous, because that's how it initially seems to
me...However, in this day and age, very little surprises me anymore when it
comes to corporate behaviour.
I ask you justify your statement "I know this for a fact"...That's all....
Either you have evidence, making this a fact...Or else you have no evidence,
making it a speculation...
Asking for evidence doesn't clog up a newsgroup...It helps to cut through
the half-truths, clear the mud from the waters and establish which
statements are true and which aren't.
Once that has been established, the only posts that ould be considered clog
up the newsgroup are those that have been proved to be wrong....And the ones
from the MI5 bloke....
So I ask again...How do you know it to be a fact?
The Todal
No, there is no such thing as criminal prosecution of a store for false
arrest.
>
> 2. Damages for lost time awarded in favour of the customer who was
> stopped. He would, of course, have to show that the store acted
> negligently or maliciously in stopping him, and it really is very hard
> to see how that could be proved, even on the balance of probabilities
> necessary for a civil case.
No, he wouldn't have to show negligence or malice, merely the ingredients of
false imprisonment.
bealoid
23482f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> you may well laugh - but do you know what button the checkout operator
> has to press to get the coupon to work ? , if so name the button (clue
> - five letter word)
"loony"?
> I have my DPA records and kwow what info is held eg I am
> classed as a "small basket
Seems accurate.
Alex Heney
wrote:
Why not?
>>
>> 2. Damages for lost time awarded in favour of the customer who was
>> stopped. He would, of course, have to show that the store acted
>> negligently or maliciously in stopping him, and it really is very hard
>> to see how that could be proved, even on the balance of probabilities
>> necessary for a civil case.
>
>No, he wouldn't have to show negligence or malice, merely the ingredients of
>false imprisonment.
>
Why?
Does "false imprisonment" fall under some obscure branch of law
outside of the normal civil wrongs or criminal offences?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Never deprive someone of hope; it may be all they have.
Alex Heney
No.
If it is a criminal case, then the offence has to be proved.
If it is a civil case, then AFAIK, the burden is always on the
plaintiff to show that the respondent acted wrongfully (although only
on balance of probabilities then, rather than BRD).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Honk if you love peace and quiet.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:10:54 +0100, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam"
><saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> You say you do not believe that the CCTV operator can override the
>>> checkout equipment , they can block coupons to stop them from
>>> registering - so the coupon cannot be scanned I can state that as fact
>>
>>Saying you can state something as a fact doesn't make it a fact.
>>Please tell us how you know this to be a fact.
>
>Well *I* know that it is a fact.
Nothing you posted afterwards suggests that you might.
>The till scans a barcode, which
>simply gives it the numerical code for the item scanned. The only way
>that the till "knows" whether it has just scanned a banana or a coupon
>is by looking up the code on a database.
That is correct, of course.
>The database can (obviously)
>be updated by store employees. So it follows that the database entry
>of the code for a coupon can be modified or deleted altogether.
What utter bollocks.
It isn't remotely close to "obvious" that the store employees can
update the database.
In fact it is so *unobvious* that I would be amazed if the system had
been written incompetently enough for them to be able to do that.
There *may* be very limited update access to that database for store
managers, but there certainly wouldn't be for CCTV operators, or any
other low level staff.
Although even then, that would not give rise to the situation Boris
was outlining, whereby a CCTV operator decides to override the
software, and cause a till to reject a coupon (without knowing what
the coupon was for unless they have *very* good CCTV, zoomed in as far
as possible).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
186,000 miles/sec: Not just a good idea, it's the LAW.
Alex Heney
boris.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
>On 3 Apr, 22:10, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam"
><samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> > You say you do not believe that the CCTV operator can override the
>> > checkout equipment , they can block coupons to stop them from
>> > registering - so the coupon cannot be scanned I can state that as fact
>>
>> Saying you can state something as a fact doesn't make it a fact.
>> Please tell us how you know this to be a fact.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>
>is it that important to prove that it is fact when it is unlikely that
>anyone else can disprove it ? , since it only serves to clog up the
>newsgroup and isn't central to the issue
It is absolutely central to the issue, since I don't think anybody
else (with the possible exception of Cynic who should know better)
believes it remotely likely to be true.
So it is absolutely central to the argument how you reached that
conclusion.
>
>a customer may wish to purchase their shopping in two transactions
>using two checkouts and uses the same coupon at each checkout , the
>checkout equipment accepts the coupon for the first transaction but
>not the second transaction
Possible but unlikely, since the checkout operator will have retained
the coupon.
If you mean another identical coupon, then there is no reason why it
would be rejected at the second till.
>
>using two checkouts attracts the attention of the CCTV operator and he/
>she overrides the checkout equipment for the second transaction
>
Except that it is incredibly unlikely the CCTV operator would have the
power to do that.
And they certainly would have no way of knowing that another identical
coupon had been used.
>Funny thing is the checkout operator didn't seem to know what had
>happened - the coupon worked after I mentioned that the CCTV operator
>had probably remotely blocked the coupon
>
It was probably misread by the scanner initially, and it took several
attempts before it was properly recognised.
>
>you may well laugh - but do you know what button the checkout operator
>has to press to get the coupon to work ?
None, usually, they just scan it.
Some coupons do require them to confirm by pressing the "Enter" key,
but most don't.
>, if so name the button (clue
>- five letter word) , then you have to consider the on screen error
>messages which you won't get if the barcode is not detected or smudged
>so you can rule out those possibilities
>
>If you or other newsgroup users aren't more knowledgeable on the
>supermarket equipment I don't see the point in saying I am wrong - for
>example I have my DPA records and kwow what info is held eg I am
>classed as a "small basket shopper"
>
>microphones in the checkout equipment spying on the staff and
>customers - far fetched ?
Extremely.
> lol -but then of course Lidl was in the
>news recently for spying on its staff
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/27/germany.supermarkets
>
In Germany, and they were in big trouble over it there, and it wasn't
the store directly, but a detective agency they had employed.
>
>The main issue here is that security staff can activate the alarm
>under the pretence of the "tag" setting it off and that is a falsehood
>
You have stated this, but have provided absolutely zero evidence for
it.
>presumably security staff give evidence in Court and are considered to
>be credible witnesses and the sort of people they give evidence
>against may well have previous convictions and be considered less
>credible
>
>fortunately I do not fall into this category
I think you may be under a misapprehension there (although not in so
far as the shops go).
You have certainly not posted anything reasonably credible in this
thread.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I distinctly remember forgetting that.
boris.w...@googlemail.com
<samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
> So I ask again...How do you know it to be a fact?- Hide quoted text -
>
I thought I had explained it
two transactions - two checkouts - two coupons
Cynic is playing "devils advocate" as usual by suggesting I may have
been attempting to use the same "personalised unique" coupon twice
when this was not the case - they were two coupons from the neck of
Old Speckled Hen ale with the same EAN barcode (this is a different
incident from the security tag incident and a different store , coupon
blocked - coupon unblocked - no big deal) . The Old Speckled Hen
coupon states "one coupon per transaction" in the small print so would
justify using two checkouts , but the CCTV operator may suspect I am
using a dodgy coupon
an example of a unique "one use" coupon would be the clubcard vouchers
mailed out quarterly
I certainly seem to live and exciting life dodging all this
supermarket covert surveillance and bugged checkouts , a woman who
works on the checkouts talks to me outside of work ,but she is a spy
really why else did she work at three different Tesco's in the area ?
- explain that and is it a coincidence she was at the same bus stop
as me today ?
anyway I'm off to use MI5 victim's favorite library at the Barbican
Centre , all the computers there are bugged by MI5 and there are spies
in the library - you will say I am bonkers , but have you ever used
the computers in this library? - why do you think the "right click"
button has been disabled ?
how many other libraries behave like this ? and I will post my letters
at random post boxes around the country to avoid detection
I don't have anything to prove - I posted to show how security staff
can manufacture the evidence and I am sure you agree that they can do
so easily
boris.w...@googlemail.com
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 16:39:47 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
>
>
> boris.winkle...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >On 3 Apr, 21:59, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >> If you do, and he makes a complaint of wrongful arrest, then it would
> >> be up to them to prove BRD that you did NOT have reasonable grounds
> >> for suspicion.
> >> --
> >> Alex Heney, Global Villager
>
> >I thought the burden was on the person carrying out the arrest to
> >prove it was lawful - rather than the arrestee to prove it was
> >unlawful in tort
>
> >or have I misinterpreted your post ?
>
> No.
>
> If it is a criminal case, then the offence has to be proved.
>
> If it is a civil case, then AFAIK, the burden is always on the
> plaintiff to show that the respondent acted wrongfully (although only
> on balance of probabilities then, rather than BRD).
> --
the burden of proof is on the defendent in a civil case to show that
the detention is lawful
if the detention is not in dispute - then it is for the defendant to
justify it
I am not sure about criminal law as civil law is used more frequently
in respect of wrongful arrest and false imprisonment
what do the experts think ?
royrover
Did you happen to look outside and see what colour the sky was?
boris.w...@googlemail.com
>
> You have certainly not posted anything reasonably credible in this
> thread.
You were incorrect in your earlier message where you said the burden
as on the plaintiff to prove that arrsest/detention was unlawful
see this link for confirmation that I am correct
http://www.tuckerssolicitors.com/guide_civil_actions.asp
"Once it has been established that there has been a detention, the
burden is on the police to establish that there was lawful
justification to detain the individual."
therefore I disagree with your remark that "I have not posted anything
The Todal
Maybe someone should introduce a bill in Parliament.
>
>
>>> 2. Damages for lost time awarded in favour of the customer who was
>>> stopped. He would, of course, have to show that the store acted
>>> negligently or maliciously in stopping him, and it really is very hard
>>> to see how that could be proved, even on the balance of probabilities
>>> necessary for a civil case.
>> No, he wouldn't have to show negligence or malice, merely the ingredients of
>> false imprisonment.
>>
>
> Why?
>
> Does "false imprisonment" fall under some obscure branch of law
> outside of the normal civil wrongs or criminal offences?
Oh, it isn't obscure at all, not if you're a store detective or police
officer.
Cynic
wrote:
>>The till scans a barcode, which
>>simply gives it the numerical code for the item scanned. The only way
>>that the till "knows" whether it has just scanned a banana or a coupon
>>is by looking up the code on a database.
>
>That is correct, of course.
>
>>The database can (obviously)
>>be updated by store employees. So it follows that the database entry
>>of the code for a coupon can be modified or deleted altogether.
>
>What utter bollocks.
>
>It isn't remotely close to "obvious" that the store employees can
>update the database.
>
>In fact it is so *unobvious* that I would be amazed if the system had
>been written incompetently enough for them to be able to do that.
By "store employees" I was of course referring to employees of the
store, not an employee of any particular branch of that store.
>There *may* be very limited update access to that database for store
>managers, but there certainly wouldn't be for CCTV operators, or any
>other low level staff.
Which is exactly what I stated elsewhere.
The contention was that a store can invalidate a coupon so that it
won't be validated at the till. Which of course it can. I did not
mean to imply that it could be done by the cleaner for an individual
customer!
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>It is absolutely central to the issue, since I don't think anybody
>else (with the possible exception of Cynic who should know better)
>believes it remotely likely to be true.
Except that you completely misinterpreted what I had said - which was
*not* supporting the PP in his assertion that a CCTV operator can
invalidate a coupon remotely.
I simply stated that the *store* (i.e. the corporate body) can do so.
--
Cynic
Alex Heney
wrote:
Are you saying that false imprisonment isn't an offence?
Surely it classes as kidnap?
>>
>>
>>>> 2. Damages for lost time awarded in favour of the customer who was
>>>> stopped. He would, of course, have to show that the store acted
>>>> negligently or maliciously in stopping him, and it really is very hard
>>>> to see how that could be proved, even on the balance of probabilities
>>>> necessary for a civil case.
>>> No, he wouldn't have to show negligence or malice, merely the ingredients of
>>> false imprisonment.
>>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Does "false imprisonment" fall under some obscure branch of law
>> outside of the normal civil wrongs or criminal offences?
>
>Oh, it isn't obscure at all, not if you're a store detective or police
>officer.
So what is it?
I have never heard of civil law that allows you to claim damages
without either a contract breach, negligence, or malice.
What is the principle behind this law, and are there any references to
it I could look up (online free) for a proper explanation?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers.
Alex Heney
wrote:
OK, I thought you were agreeing that what the OP had stated (namely
that the CCTV operators in the store could override the till to block
a particular coupon) was something you knew to be fact.
An I based the rest of what I wrote on that interpretation.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.
Alex Heney
wrote:
It is still difficult to see how I could have come to any other
interpretation of the first line of your response.
But I accept you didn't intend it to come out that way, and you *do*
know better :-)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Make Headlines..use a corduroy pillow....
The Todal
>
> I have never heard of civil law that allows you to claim damages
> without either a contract breach, negligence, or malice.
>
>
> What is the principle behind this law, and are there any references to
> it I could look up (online free) for a proper explanation?
Common law definition: "the infliction of bodily restraint which is not
expressly or impliedly authorised by the law".
The definition and application of this principle was considered at length in
the interesting case of R. v Governor of HM Prison Brockhill.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000727/evans-1.htm
Cynic
wrote:
>>>> No, there is no such thing as criminal prosecution of a store for false
>>>> arrest.
>>> Why not?
>>Maybe someone should introduce a bill in Parliament.
>Are you saying that false imprisonment isn't an offence?
>Surely it classes as kidnap?
False imprisonment certainly *is* a criminal offence. The point is
however that it is not the *store* that will be charged with that
criminal offence (though they may be liable for any consequent damages
in civil court).
Consider a case where a security guard rapes a customer. Rape is
certainly a criminal offence. Do you however think that the CPS would
charge *the store* with that crime?
--
Cynic
The Todal
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rj1kv3l9694k0rnsi...@4ax.com...
False imprisonment is indeed a common law criminal offence, but is rarely
charged. Kidnapping and child abduction, if applicable to the
circumstances, would normally be the charges.
In kidnapping, "taking and carrying away" are the extra ingredients to
distinguish the offence from false imprisonment. By way of an example, let
us say that a child is rude to you in a public street. You corner him
against the wall and say "you're not leaving here until you apologise to
me". That might amount to the criminal offence of false imprisonment (as
well as the civil offence of course), but would probably be rather wasteful
of court time. In contrast, if you bundled the child into a car and drove
him to your house to continue the conversation about apologising to you,
that would amount to kidnapping and would indeed appear to any reasonable
man as a more serious offence.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
Thank you very much.
Very interesting, and I now accept completely that I was wrong about
negligence or malice being required.
I still think it likely that the arrest would be found to be lawful
where there was a combination of the alarm going off and refusal to
have bags checked.
But if it was found to not be lawful, then I accept that no matter how
much the actions of the security guard were in good faith, he would
still be liable for damages.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
What color is a chameleon on a mirror?
Alex Heney
wrote:
If they ordered him to do it, then they would certainly be charged as
accomplices.
And in a case where he was acting as the agent of the store, and
believed his actions to be lawful, it would seem more likely it would
be the principals who would be prosecuted (or most likely, both the
guard and the store).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
My attention isn't hard to get. It IS hard to keep...
Cynic
wrote:
>I still think it likely that the arrest would be found to be lawful
>where there was a combination of the alarm going off and refusal to
>have bags checked.
If the refusal to have the bags checked would change an otherwise
unlawful detention into a lawful detention, it will create a paradox.
i.e. Before refusing to be detained the guard has insufficient grounds
to detain you, therefore you are perfectly within your rights to
refuse his unlawful order. As soon as you do so however, the order
becomes lawful and you no longer have the right to refuse!
I cannot therefore believe that the law would take the view that
exercising your legal right would immediately remove that right.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>>Consider a case where a security guard rapes a customer. Rape is
>>certainly a criminal offence. Do you however think that the CPS would
>>charge *the store* with that crime?
>If they ordered him to do it, then they would certainly be charged as
>accomplices.
If *who* ordered him to do it?
If an officer gives an unlawful order, it is the officer who is
prosecuted, not the entire army!
>And in a case where he was acting as the agent of the store, and
>believed his actions to be lawful, it would seem more likely it would
>be the principals who would be prosecuted (or most likely, both the
>guard and the store).
If his belief was false, I don't see that anyone else could be held to
blame.
--
Cynic
The Todal
I suppose a more likely scenario would be assault rather than rape. Let us
imagine that security guards at Freshco believe, based on their training,
that if a customer runs away from them it is permissible to draw truncheons
and clobber the customer on the head until he falls to the ground, blood
oozing from his ears.
I should think that in those circumstances the employer would be prosecuted
for health and safety offences, just as the Met were prosecuted over the
death of Jean-Charles de Menezes. The employer wouldn't be prosecuted for
assault, though.
Smolley
Some of those alarms can be triggered by a remote car key, it is a sport.
Mike_B
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
Very good point, I think I'm beginning to move toward this view. So it
all boils down to whether the alarm sounding is sufficient to suspect
theft.
--
Mike_B
Alex Heney
wrote:
Neither do I.
But then I don't think that is what would be happening.
there is a big difference between allowing somebody to have a quick
look in your bag, and being detained by them for a significant period
until the police turn up.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm sure it's in the manual somewhere...
Cynic
wrote:
>>I cannot therefore believe that the law would take the view that
>>exercising your legal right would immediately remove that right.
>Neither do I.
>But then I don't think that is what would be happening.
>there is a big difference between allowing somebody to have a quick
>look in your bag, and being detained by them for a significant period
>until the police turn up.
A question only of degree which would affect the penalty for the
unlawful detention, but does not affect whether it is or is not
unlawful in any way whatsoever.
There is also, for example, a big difference between taking a 19p
packet of sweets without paying, and taking a £1000 TV set without
paying. I'm sure that you would not argue that taking the sweets is
therefore not a crime because it is not a very serious example of
theft.
--
Cynic