On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 19:00:11 +0100, Ste  wrote:

>On Sep 6, 4:35 pm, "Wm..."  wrote:
>> Tue, 2 Sep 2008 02:30:07
>> 
>> uk.legal.moderated Ste 
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > Even then, it remains open to question whether the security guard
>> >> > performed the arrest lawfully - he did not state at any time that I
>> >> > was under arrest (and Asda's defence asserts that I was in fact free
>> >> > to go), or what offence I was suspected of committing.
>>
>> >> Umm, how do you know you were arrested? I mean, did somebody touch you, how
>> >> long were you detained for, how many security guards, etc?
>>
>> >Yes, the security guard placed his hand on my elbow as I moved to
>> >leave - at that point I became aware that I was not free to leave. I
>> >further put it to the security guard that if I was not free to leave,
>> >I was going to call 999. He nodded in astonishment, and at that point
>> >I rang the police.
>>
>> >There was 1 guard initially, and a second joined him while I spoke to
>> >the police operator.
>>
>> >In all, it lasted 20-30 minutes.
>>
>> Perhaps I am the only person in this group that is puzzled by what Ste
>> is saying.
>>
>> To the OP: were you stealing or not?
>
>Do I really need to answer that question?
>
>
>> If you weren't stealing I don't understand why you didn't just show your
>> receipt and continue with life as a whole.
>
>I've covered this before. To show your receipt, or cooperate in any
>way, is in fact a vindication of their behaviour. If alarms are
>grounds for suspicion, then I demand that they are made more reliable,
>if a security guard is to come running after me with suspicion in his
>eyes!
>
>What I cannot understand, here, is why so many people think it is
>perfectly reasonable for the store to be suspicious of all and sundry,
>and for it to be perfectly reasonable to be forced by them to turn out
>your pockets, but that it is not reasonable to ask them to implement
>accurate methods of detection (which do exist!).
>

Basically, speaking for myself, but probably also some others, I am
not willing to pay for the additional costs that would entail.

If they could find a better way at little or no additional cost, I
would be all for it.

-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sep 8, 2:40 am, Alex Heney  wrote:
> On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 19:00:11 퍝, Ste  wrote:
> >On Sep 6, 4:35 pm, "Wm..."  wrote:
> >> Tue, 2 Sep 2008 02:30:07
> >> 
> >> uk.legal.moderated Ste 
>
> >> >> > Even then, it remains open to question whether the security guard
> >> >> > performed the arrest lawfully - he did not state at any time that I
> >> >> > was under arrest (and Asda's defence asserts that I was in fact free
> >> >> > to go), or what offence I was suspected of committing.
>
> >> >> Umm, how do you know you were arrested? I mean, did somebody touch you, how
> >> >> long were you detained for, how many security guards, etc?
>
> >> >Yes, the security guard placed his hand on my elbow as I moved to
> >> >leave - at that point I became aware that I was not free to leave. I
> >> >further put it to the security guard that if I was not free to leave,
> >> >I was going to call 999. He nodded in astonishment, and at that point
> >> >I rang the police.
>
> >> >There was 1 guard initially, and a second joined him while I spoke to
> >> >the police operator.
>
> >> >In all, it lasted 20-30 minutes.
>
> >> Perhaps I am the only person in this group that is puzzled by what Ste
> >> is saying.
>
> >> To the OP: were you stealing or not?
>
> >Do I really need to answer that question?
>
> >> If you weren't stealing I don't understand why you didn't just show your
> >> receipt and continue with life as a whole.
>
> >I've covered this before. To show your receipt, or cooperate in any
> >way, is in fact a vindication of their behaviour. If alarms are
> >grounds for suspicion, then I demand that they are made more reliable,
> >if a security guard is to come running after me with suspicion in his
> >eyes!
>
> >What I cannot understand, here, is why so many people think it is
> >perfectly reasonable for the store to be suspicious of all and sundry,
> >and for it to be perfectly reasonable to be forced by them to turn out
> >your pockets, but that it is not reasonable to ask them to implement
> >accurate methods of detection (which do exist!).
>
> Basically, speaking for myself, but probably also some others, I am
> not willing to pay for the additional costs that would entail.

I submit that the cost spread amongst all customers would remain
negligible. Even if it cost the industry a billion pounds to
implement(!) over 3 years, that is only £3 per person per year, or 20p
on a family's weekly shop, and that is if it does not reduce theft.

But surely, with this new technology, thieves would be caught or
deterred? That in itself would save tens of millions of pounds (theft
as a whole costs the retail industry hundreds of millions of pounds
per year), and would be of huge social good.

More to the point here, though, it would be the cost of complying with
the laws of England. Stating in open court that complying with the law
would be too expensive, will not curry favour with the judge.


> If they could find a better way at little or no additional cost, I
> would be all for it.

I submit there is a better way, for little or no additional cost.
Stores simply do not want to implement it, because it is still cheaper
to compensate the minority who sue.

Moreover, time does have a cost. The startling fact is that most
people, it appears, find being detained and forced to prove your
innocence to be positively recreational. I on the other hand have
better, more pleasurable things to do with my time.