On Wed,  3 Sep 2008 19:20:16 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>On Wed,  3 Sep 2008 12:25:06 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>On Sep 2, 11:45 pm, Mark Goodge 
>>wrote:
>>> On Mon,  1 Sep 2008 12:10:05 +0100, GB put finger to keyboard and
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> That's why I think that a more effective
>>> >> course of action would be to take it up with Asda's complaints
>>> >> department rather than wasting money on a court action that will
>>> >> almost certainly be fruitless.
>>>
>>> >One possible justification from the OP's point of view is that he will run
>>> >up some pretty significant costs for ASDA defending this case. I guess
>>> >they'll instruct counsel, etc.
>>>
>>> >Really, this is a case that Asda ought to try to settle. The best they can
>>> >hope for is that they win the case but don't recover their costs. The worst
>>> >case is that they lose, fairly unlikely I agree, in which case they'll
>>> >generate millions of Pounds worth of unfavourable publicity. However, this
>>> >depends on how well the security guards perform as witnesses once they are
>>> >in court.
>>>
>>> Actually, I would think that if Adsa come away from the court with a
>>> ruling which supports their existing security practices, they'll think
>>> it money well spent. The costs of defending the case are, to them,
>>> pretty trivial. The value of knowing that they can lawfully detain
>>> suspected shoplifters is immense.
>>
>>I think we all agree the law is, at least, ambiguous here.
>>
>>For Asda, it would certainly be a boon to know suspected shoplifters
>>could be detained. However, what consequences would follow for Asda if
>>the law were declared otherwise?
>
>Then Asda, and other stores, would need to find a different way of
>preventing shoplifting. If someone can walk out of the store with
>tagged goods and refuse to be detained if challenged, then other
>systems will need to be developed. 


Asda and others need to find a way of not effectively accusing people
of doing so when they haven't.

I suspect that their current system are the cheapest.


eg
Have the recognition of the item with the tag on linked to the scanner
so that the tag must be removed when it is scanned and then a positive
response given by the till operator.
Have a tag detector immediately after every till so that when it
bleeps the assistant can say "Oh sorry - my fault - I have missed
something"