9k for a can of coke!

Strumms

.anon. wrote: »

All the more reason for them (and whoever they outsource their security to) to train their staff properly. We're all paying for the calculated short-cuts these companies take.

stores nationwide are at about 160.....

They therefore are making tens of thousands in profit in an hour nationwide, 9000 euros is a drop in the ocean...going by what happened it’s on the light side...

I’m surprised that the person detained wasn’t looking for criminal charges to be made against the security personnel too... falsely imprisonment....doesn’t matter if you are wearing a company uniform, the law still applies to you.

if you doubled the 9000 you’d be more on the mark of what fine should have been applied... but the courts back corporations and businesses over its citizens, no surprise there.

.anon.

Mjolnir wrote: »

Genuine question have you worked for or do you know anyone that has worked for security companies?
Most will hire anyone with a licence and give them no training.

I know a lot of people who've worked in that industry, and that sounds about right. High turnover of staff too, which is never good.

Mjolnir

.anon. wrote: »

I know a lot of people who've worked in that industry, and that sounds about right. High turnover of staff too, which is never good.

I've been in the industry I'm sure your mates will tell you it's a sh/t show.
I've worked with guys in roles that require decent English that hadn't a word of it. That's not fair on them or the client.

Terribly ran industry, and you're right staff turn over is huge which is why a lot run ads on job sites constantly. Mostly that's down to management and hiring/training polices.

ForestFire

astrofool wrote: »

Essentially you're saying that the actions of bringing someone to a room to watch a video are worth up to €75k (because it didn't go to court, we don't know the facts), but even the most extreme of circumstances makes €9k a very large pay-out, for what is essentially 30 minutes of being detained.

Again, this is the system we have, it doesn't make the system correct or proportional, and seems to be in favour of those who push their luck and feign outrage than anything based in reality (kid gets told off by security incorrectly, gets 9k).

Sorry I just saw this thread and have just read a few pages and your posts, but if my understanding is correct, your saying.....


.....I am allowed go our in the tomorrow, bundle some teenager into the back of my car, for 30mins just, and I will only be charged €90 (100X less) for the "inconvenience" of just being "detained"??!! is 60mins €180 Euro, or do I get a discount for more time?

I have no problem with this judgment, 9k seems very reasonable to me for False Accusations, Assault and false imprisonment .....

Iteration1

ForestFire wrote: »

Sorry I just saw this thread and have just read a few pages and your posts, but if my understanding is correct, your saying.....


.....I am allowed go our in the tomorrow, bundle some teenager into the back of my car, for 30mins just, and I will only be charged €90 (100X less) for the "inconvenience" of just being "detained"??!! is 60mins €180 Euro, or do I get a discount for more time?

I have no problem with this judgment, 9k seems very reasonable to me for False Accusations, Assault and false imprisonment .....

I can answer your question. No, your understanding is so far off, it's argumentum ad absurdum. Also your math is wrong, as alike your argument it's foundations are flawed. It states in the report that he was detained for 5 minutes. It's good that you have no issue with the judgement, personally I would agree with astrofool, but it looks like people agree with both sides of thinking.

ForestFire

Iteration1 wrote: »

I can answer your question. No, your understanding is so far off, it's argumentum ad absurdum. Also your math is wrong, as alike your argument it's foundations are flawed. It states in the report that he was detained for 5 minutes. It's good that you have no issue with the judgement, personally I would agree with astrofool, but it looks like people agree with both sides of thinking.

astrofool said 30mins in their post, which I was directly replying to their argument about this.....

And I know the answer to my own question, just not sure others do...

And yes it's extreme comparison, but if I done it, I would be facing kidnapping charges, so 9k for tesco assaulting and false "detention" (as their a company so cannot kidnap you I guess) is still very light in the circumstances.

Strumms

ForestFire wrote: »

astrofool said 30mins in their post, which I was directly replying to their argument about this.....

And I know the answer to my own question, just not sure others do...

And yes it's extreme comparison, but if I done it, I would be facing kidnapping charges, so 9k for tesco assaulting and false "detention" (as their a company so cannot kidnap you I guess) is still very light in the circumstances.

Yes, if a man say saw a kid jumping their wall, they thought or presumed they were robbing the expensive thoroughbred dog, they apprehended and detained them in their living room by force, Gardai arrived, turns out the kid accidentally kicked his ball into the garden and thought he’d retrieve it without disturbing them.. they kept the kid in the house for 15 - 20 minutes while the Gardai arrived and they used a degree of force to obtain the kids capture...

Put it this way, that family would have more to worry about then paying the mortgage, although that would become a challenge itself if I had anything to do with it.

Iteration1

ForestFire wrote: »

astrofool said 30mins in their post, which I was directly replying to their argument about this.....

And I know the answer to my own question, just not sure others do...

And yes it's extreme comparison, but if I done it, I would be facing kidnapping charges, so 9k for tesco assaulting and false "detention" (as their a company so cannot kidnap you I guess) is still very light in the circumstances.

Well, maybe not kidnapping, but yes, you too would probably be done for false imprisonment and probably assault, as should be the case. If you just grabbed somebody by the wrist because you thought they had stolen your wallet, the same result, but you would be feeling a lot more hard done by.
In this case a security guard made a mistake about a €2 can of coke, detained somebody wrongly for 5 minutes and they got an award of €9,000 for the error and all involved in the case got paid for their time. Its an industry being built by the legal system and insurance companies and the only losers in the long term are the general public. No, I'm not saying this was a vexatious claim, that has been covered. I'm saying that we are already in a position where something that should be settled at the shop between management and the parent within an hour, is a whole public paid circus and we're only going further down that path. I'm not saying the parent was wrong either, maybe they had no other recourse, the system just seems f*cked.

Mimon

Mjolnir wrote: »

I've been in the industry I'm sure your mates will tell you it's a sh/t show.
I've worked with guys in roles that require decent English that hadn't a word of it. That's not fair on them or the client.

Terribly ran industry, and you're right staff turn over is huge which is why a lot run ads on job sites constantly. Mostly that's down to management and hiring/training polices.

Worked for one of the bigger companies as a summer job good few years ago. Couldn't even book a day off. Rang head office to book it and rang couple of days later to confirm it was ok'd and they denied that I had rang for the request. Rinse and repeat and was struggling to do achieve my right to use one of my statutory holidays.

Colleague said that that is the way they are and he covered the shift!

rom

I worked in Roches Stores 20+ years ago and we were told the store detective needs to see the person stealing and not to confront people. They also gave examples like people bringing in clothes to see if they matched and then if you looked at the wrong time it would look like stealing. Tesco have a guy out front looking at camera for show but have more in the back office. A company of that size should have great processes for this so a mistake costing 9k is reasonable.

Every time they forget to take there stupid tags off stuff I never go back.

Mjolnir

Mimon wrote: »

Worked for one of the bigger companies as a summer job good few years ago. Couldn't even book a day off. Rang head office to book it and rang couple of days later to confirm it was ok'd and they denied that I had rang for the request. Rinse and repeat and was struggling to do achieve my right to use one of my statutory holidays.

Colleague said that that is the way they are and he covered the shift!

That's common place, they completely ignore working time laws, holidays etc.
One boss tried to tell a mate of mine who I worked with he couldn't go to his brothers wedding he had to work.
I've never laughed as much in the awkward situations of watching someone cursing out their boss and telling them where to shove the job.

My personal favourite was, oh we don't charge them for a month so can't pay you for a month. Eh no mate when you charge them is you're problem my contract states I get paid a week in arrears so I'll get it next Friday tá.

There was a dodgy stretch where there were companies "providing training" to get staff licences, paying them a lower rate and taking payment off their wages.
I asked several of my colleges that did that what was involved in the training and I got, "what oh I signed a form and was told if asked by psa I was in a classroom doing xyz."

It's one of the most dodgy industries going, the fella in this case may well have taught, been told or just assumed he was well within his rights or like some may not give a flying fu€k.

...Ghost...

Iteration1 wrote: »

No, I will admit I haven't, but I didn't hang around with casual mates that did shoplift, probably out of the fear of what would happen if they were caught. There was an expectation that you would be hauled in and reprimanded and strung up at home for being associated. Being detained and threatened with the guards is not a war crime, its a life lesson. You were detained for an hour, he was detained for 5 minutes. Does that mean you feel entitled to €108,000? Is it just Dunnes Stores you want taught a lesson? Or all businesses? The kid gets €9,000 for a stupid 5min mistake. How much did the whole thing cost? Personally I just think its money wasted.

How would you know your casual friends never shoplifted? I certainly didn't witness the girl shoplifting. I was in the sweet shop buying fizzy colas when she was ripping off Dunnes Stores. Sounds like you have no mates at all to be honest, but that's a different thread.

I didn't think I would have needing to point this next bit out, but obviously I do. I didn't need to be accused, detained and threatened. Had the thick headed security guard actually done his job, I wouldn't have been grabbed outside the supermarket and marched into a security room like a criminal. That experience had me paranoid for years when in shops. You have no idea of how an experience like that can affect people.

Your monetary entitlement question shows you have exactly zero understanding of the situation at all. It's not a bloody time based buffet. If I kick the sh1t out of you and you say the ordeal lasted at least 20 minutes and I am given 4 months behind bars. Should my sentence be reduced to 1 month when my solicitor uncovers cctv that proved I only kicked the sh1t out of you for 5 minutes? Your face is still as smashed in as when you thought it was a 20 minute ordeal.

Iteration1 wrote: »

SNIP
In this case a security guard made a mistake about a €2 can of coke, detained somebody wrongly for 5 minutes and they got an award of €9,000 for the error and all involved in the case got paid for their time
SNIP

Wrong again. The security guard made several mistakes.
1) He wrongly assumed the teenager stole a can of coke.
2)Based on his incorrect assumption, he apprehended the boy.
3)He escorted the boy to the security office passing hundred of people on the way.
4)He detained the boy (false imprisonment). Length of time not material.
5)He accused the boy of theft with no evidence.
6)He refused to identify himself to the father.

9k euro. They got off very lightly.

YFlyer

Edz87 wrote: »

Tesco kept 2c change from me the other day.

They can use that the cu*ts

Lol.

Iteration1

...Ghost... wrote: »

How would you know your casual friends never shoplifted? I certainly didn't witness the girl shoplifting. I was in the sweet shop buying fizzy colas when she was ripping off Dunnes Stores. Sounds like you have no mates at all to be honest, but that's a different thread.

I didn't think I would have needing to point this next bit out, but obviously I do. I didn't need to be accused, detained and threatened. Had the thick headed security guard actually done his job, I wouldn't have been grabbed outside the supermarket and marched into a security room like a criminal. That experience had me paranoid for years when in shops. You have no idea of how an experience like that can affect people.

Your monetary entitlement question shows you have exactly zero understanding of the situation at all. It's not a bloody time based buffet. If I kick the sh1t out of you and you say the ordeal lasted at least 20 minutes and I am given 4 months behind bars. Should my sentence be reduced to 1 month when my solicitor uncovers cctv that proved I only kicked the sh1t out of you for 5 minutes? Your face is still as smashed in as when you thought it was a 20 minute ordeal.



Wrong again. The security guard made several mistakes.
1) He wrongly assumed the teenager stole a can of coke.
2)Based on his incorrect assumption, he apprehended the boy.
3)He escorted the boy to the security office passing hundred of people on the way.
4)He detained the boy (false imprisonment). Length of time not material.
5)He accused the boy of theft with no evidence.
6)He refused to identify himself to the father.

9k euro. They got off very lightly.

Firstly, there's no need for the attempted personal slight, the discussion in this thread has been civil and constructive so far, there's no need to change that.

By one mistake, I meant he wrongly thought the can was stolen, that mistake led to the series of other issues you list above. I am assuming if he had been right, everything other than refusing to provide his name, would have been legally correct.

I'm not sure I understand the reference to a time based buffet. The point I was trying to make was that 5 minutes detention in a store is actually significantly less than the hour you experienced. I've been detained by customs for for both durations, one is a slight inconvenience, the other, well something much more stressful, even if you know you're in the right. I think when it comes to false detention, the duration is slightly more relevant than in relation to an assault.

As stated, I think the whole process was over the top. Apparently some believe its the only means to get the likes to Tesco to amend their practices, which looks to be true, its just a pity that time and money has to be wasted on such things. Even if it was a case of punitive amounts going to charity, instead of awards to such complaints, I think it would be a step in the right direction.

...Ghost...

Iteration1 wrote: »

Firstly, there's no need for the attempted personal slight, the discussion in this thread has been civil and constructive so far, there's no need to change that.

To avoid "personal slight" recurring, I would suggest you do not denigrate my personal experience while simultaneously picking at my choice of casual friends when I was a kid. I don't know what it was like for you growing up, but in my neighbourhood, you had your core friends and you had friends of friends you sometimes hung around with. There was no requirement to check friends criminal history before accompanying them to the shop. Nor was it deemed appropriate to ask if they intended to shoplift while there. But hey, that's just me being a kid.

Threatening an innocent child with the Gardaí and jail is not a life lesson, it's fuking child abuse. I can't get my head around to how you would think otherwise. You then try to belittle that traumatic (yes, traumatic it was) experience by placing yourself on the moral pedestal and equate my childhood experience with a time based monetary value of €9,000 per five minutes detained.

By one mistake, I meant he wrongly thought the can was stolen, that mistake led to the series of other issues you list above. I am assuming if he had been right, everything other than refusing to provide his name, would have been legally correct.

I know what you meant. But you continue to use language to soften the errors made by the security guard. They were stupid mistakes made by an arrogant security officer who probably couldn't make the grade to become a Guard and thought he would display his faux authority to a teenage boy who was innocent. He made a series of mistakes which obviously humiliated the 15 year old.

By refusing to identify himself, he was breaking the law and should have been prosecuted and/or fined. See here => https://www.psa.gov.ie/en/PSA/Pages/id_badges

I'm not sure I understand the reference to a time based buffet. The point I was trying to make was that 5 minutes detention in a store is actually significantly less than the hour you experienced. I've been detained by customs for for both durations, one is a slight inconvenience, the other, well something much more stressful, even if you know you're in the right. I think when it comes to false detention, the duration is slightly more relevant than in relation to an assault.

The reference was in response to you basing what you suggested I might feel entitled to for being illegally detained for an hour, using a valuation of €9,000 per 5 minutes. My point was that the time I was falsely imprisoned was less relevant than the psychological trauma of the experience at the time which festered for years later and in the short terms meant I could not go to the shopping centre....something my friends did on an almost daily basis.

As stated, I think the whole process was over the top. Apparently some believe its the only means to get the likes to Tesco to amend their practices, which looks to be true, its just a pity that time and money has to be wasted on such things. Even if it was a case of punitive amounts going to charity, instead of awards to such complaints, I think it would be a step in the right direction.

The whole process was over the top. The security guard failed in his basic duty to check if someone had paid for an item before taking further action. He then abused what little authority he had in his uniform by [covered in my previous post].

Security guards are actively discouraged from detaining anyone. It is only deemed acceptable to detain someone if you are 100% sure the person has stolen something....that you have CCTV to back it up and that it is safe to approach and detain the person.

For the sake of a can of Coke, that security guard royally fuked up and should have lost his license. I doubt he still works on the contract for Tesco, or with the security company at all. License revocation would be the right move and I say that because he refused to ID himself which he is required to do.

AllGunsBlazing

When the self service machine asks if you want a receipt, always tap yes.

AllGunsBlazing

...Ghost... wrote: »

For the sake of a can of Coke, that security guard royally fuked up and should have lost his license. I doubt he still works on the contract for Tesco, or with the security company at all. License revocation would be the right move and I say that because he refused to ID himself which he is required to do.

I'd be more in favour of a suspension/probation, followed by a transfer to another store, than the fella being made unemployed.

But if he has previous for jumping the gun then he is a walking liability for whoever employs him.

...Ghost...

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

I'd be more in favour of a suspension/probation, followed by a transfer to another store, than the fella being made unemployed.

But if he has previous for jumping the gun then he is a walking liability for whoever employs him.

If that included re-training, I would agree were it not for the ID issue. He withheld his information which is a step up from failing to prominently display his ID.