False shoplifting accusation

CCTV footage will be brilliant quality but that will mean nothing to them as they blindly back the staff who made first contact.
You could be 50 years old & if the person on the till blanks you for Alcohol then All the staff will back them no matter how stupid it is.
I'd say the same thing has happened here, Somebody has said you looked dodgey so they just blindly back them.
It's jut one of many stupid rules/policys that Tesco have.

It's weird as it makes it look like they actually care about there staff but really they just use it to switch the blame from themselves as a company to the Individual staff member who made first contact.
 
Slam62 said:
I would demand an apology until they show you the cctv, data protection is a rubbish excuse.
I would keep writing to people higher up the tree.

Mainly because I would want to know what was construed as concealing so that I wouldn't do it again.
Click to expand...

The Information Commisioner Office disagree with you about CCTV being covered by the DPA: http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/topic_guides/cctv

As it apparently is under the DPA then no amount of FOI requests or demands will get it.

Edit: Reading the leaflet in the above link you might be able to get the cctv footage
Individuals whose images are recorded have a right to view the images of themselves and, unless they agree otherwise, to be provided with a copy of the images. This must be provided within 40 calendar days of receiving a request. You may charge a fee of up to £10
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
My advice would be to subject access request the CCTV footage of yourself. Inspect the footage and decide if the Tesco security had any grounds to detain you at all. You may of done something purely instinctively, a body movement or some action which looked like you may have attempted a theft. If you deem it unreasonable and it's clear from the footage that they had no grounds then take the matter further.
 
Last edited:
Third Opinion said:
I don't want compensation, I just want recognition I do not go around a supermarket concealing items to steal.

Imagine how you guys would feel?
Click to expand...

Exactly the same. If they had apologised or not persistently maintained I had been concealing items then I would have let the matter lie.

I am like a dog with a bone on these type of matters despite the fact that I am naturally quite a laid back / non-confrontational person.

The fact they are refusing to show you the CCTV doesn't in itself mean that there is no 'evidence' i.e. it could look like you were concealing items. I'd still be formally requesting to see it however if they aren't prepared to apologise.
 
Captain Planet said:
That's the thing, it is based on "reasonable belief". You'd have to stand up and convince the court that you was beyond all doubt that the person you apprehended was doing wrong. If your belief is based on flawed presumptions/lacking evidence (you can't convince the court) then you are at risk of prosecution for assault. Essentially, we can't all go around tackling people down because we think they're a "bad 'un".

I think generally the perception of our rights to citizens arrest is wildly over estimated. I think many people confuse their ability to make a citizens arrest with their right to self defence. The right to self defence applies in extreme cases though and the circumstances are usually much more clear cut as to when using reasonable force is legal in preventing imminent injury or loss of life to yourself or another person.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a rather warped view of this.

If Person A detains Person B with reasonable force where Person A has genuine honest held belief Person B is making off with stolen goods and is acting in good faith then person B has no right to "self defence" in the way you describe it.

If Person A takes hold of Person B in a reasonable way, explains themselves and Person B attacks them then Person B is up for assault, not Person A.

I am bored of this sense of entitlement and "rights" everyone seems to think they can exercise in the extreme in EVERY circumstance. Yes, you have rights. Yes you can exercise them.

However, punching someone for detaining you with honest held belief is not exercising your rights, it is not self defence and it is not reasonable. Such action would only lend corroboration to the fact you are making off with stolen goods, for example, and likely attract a greater use of force that is now justified and reasonable in the circumstances.

I am not debating the fact 'Person A' would need to justify their course of action. Absolutely they would need to, they would also need the evidence to back it up. Be that by corroborating witnesses, CCTV or otherwise.

A reasonable (innocent) person, upon being detained, would explain themselves, present a receipt or return to the shop to clear up the misunderstanding. They might not be happy about it but they certainly would not exercise "self defence" and go crazy on shop security, nor would they have any right to.

Does being detained expose someone to fear of imminent attack/violence? Not for most reasonable people.
 
Last edited:
As you feel so aggrieved by this I think that you should get a solicitor involved and try to get some compensation out of them, it's the only way that Tesco will take you seriously.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
Under the data protection act a company must provide information held about an individual if requested to do so by that individual.
Click to expand...

I believe its called a "subject access request" :)

edit:

When can CCTV images be disclosed?
You have the right to see CCTV images of you and to ask for a copy of them. The organisation must provide them within 40 calendar days of your request, and you may be asked to pay a fee of up to £10 (this is the maximum charge, set by Parliament). This is called a Subject Access Request. You will need to provide details to help the operator to establish your identity as the person in the pictures, and to help them find the images on their system.
Click to expand...

http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/cctv
 
Sin_Chase said:
You seem to have a rather warped view of this.

If Person A detains Person B with reasonable force where Person A has genuine honest held belief Person B is making off with stolen goods and is acting in good faith then person B has no right to "self defence" in the way you describe it.

If Person A takes hold of Person B in a reasonable way, explains themselves and Person B attacks them then Person B is up for assault, not Person A.

I am bored of this sense of entitlement and "rights" everyone seems to think they can exercise in the extreme in EVERY circumstance. Yes, you have rights. Yes you can exercise them.

However, punching someone for detaining you with honest held belief is not exercising your rights, it is not self defence and it is not reasonable. Such action would only lend corroboration to the fact you are making off with stolen goods, for example, and likely attract a greater use of force that is now justified and reasonable in the circumstances.

I am not debating the fact 'Person A' would need to justify their course of action. Absolutely they would need to, they would also need the evidence to back it up. Be that by corroborating witnesses, CCTV or otherwise.

A reasonable (innocent) person, upon being detained, would explain themselves, present a receipt or return to the shop to clear up the misunderstanding. They might not be happy about it but they certainly would not exercise "self defence" and go crazy on shop security, nor would they have any right to.

Does being detained expose someone to fear of imminent attack/violence? Not for most reasonable people.
Click to expand...

So you've gone from "using force", to "explaining yourself", I assume you mean chatting to the accused like "hey, you, stop there because I think you're doing something bad". Like I said, if you're using force, force can be used back in self defence. If you're going to stand there and chat to me I'm going to politely tell you to mind your own business.

Of course there is the sense of entitlement! I have my entitlement to my freedom, and I'm not allowing some complete stranger who I don't know walk up to me and apprehend me! You don't know what they are doing, even if they have explained. The best thing random stranger can do is call the police and let them deal with the matter. To go all vigilante is going to end in trouble.
 
Sin_Chase said:
You seem to have a rather warped view of this.

If Person A detains Person B with reasonable force where Person A has genuine honest held belief Person B is making off with stolen goods and is acting in good faith then person B has no right to "self defence" in the way you describe it.

If Person A takes hold of Person B in a reasonable way, explains themselves and Person B attacks them then Person B is up for assault, not Person A.
Click to expand...

Surely this would depend on how person A "detains" person B? If they "detain" them verbally, then no, of course person B wouldn't be allowed to turn round and thump them.

However if they tried to physically restrain them in any way, then surely person B would be fully entitled to defend themselves - after all, person B doesn't know if this person who's just grabbed them is trying to stop them because they think they're a shoplifter, or just because they want to steal their wallet.
 
^Which is a much more succinct way of putting what I meant.

People use the phrase reasonable force too. That doesn't necessarily mean if some one grabs your arm you can only grab their arm back. What if the grabber is a 200lb guy and the victim a size 6 woman? It would be quite reasonable to punch him in the balls.
 
The store and the manager are both very lucky the OP was such a pushover, certainly I wouldn't have settled for a voucher and a stain on my character. And I am a person of dubious character lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom