A break in the foul weather allowed us to escape from Waiouru and take the local bus to Oswestry. We again opted to eat at the local Wetherspoons where you know the quality of the food will be consistent. We have taken to ordering the all day brunch working on the principle that it has to be freshly cooked rather than tickled in the microwave. Jan had a coffee with her meal whilst I opted for a beer choosing the Shipyard American Pale Ale. A very poor choice. It tasted like gnat’s pee. On a more positive note, I had sensibly ordered a half instead of the usual pint.
It wasn’t until we were leaving that I noticed someone had pea’d on the stairs.
You can see the poor squashed green pea in front of my right shoe on the next step. You didn’t think someone had urinated! 
The fair was in town and Jan wanted a ride on The Teacups (it’s the little girl in her). To her regret the ride was still being set up.
The kids were enjoying the ice rink which actually looks like the surface is melamine rather than ice! I was in the middle of taking the following photo when Jan asked “Should you be taking photos of children?” What has the world come to when you have to concern yourself with that type of question!
From here we wandered back to the main bus station which happens to be between the Morrisons and Aldi supermarkets. We didn’t need any food but went into Aldi to kill some time. Jan bought a few Christmas items and we had just reached the checkout when the excitement happened. Our checkout operator caledl out “They’re leaving!” and one of the others said “What are you waiting for….Come-on lets get them!”. All the Aldi staff rushed out of the store to apprehend two scruffy looking males (late teens – early 20’s) who had just left the store. Now all the staff were female and at least one of the males objected to being physically stopped. However the males and their bags were returned to the shop where they (the bags) we searched and Aldi items removed before the two males went on their way. On her return the checkout operator apologised to us for the delay telling us they (the staff) had been watching the two males. My initial thoughts were:
- Great teamwork on the part of the store staff
- All the tills were left unattended for a couple of minutes
- Was there a likelihood one or more of the staff might have been injured if a more serious struggle had occurred.
- Why were the males allowed to leave without calling the police.
- This sends a message to any other potential thief in the store.
My guess is the two males knew the police wouldn’t be called and if they had, then any punishment would be miniscule. I assume the staff also knew that which is why they didn’t call the police. Unfortunately as long as petty thieves know they aren’t going to face any serious consequences there are going to be more of them. It’s the rest of society who will have to pay in higher prices.
7 comments :
Bring back 'transportation' I say. Steal a loaf of bread= a lifetime in the hell hole that is Australia. That'll learn 'em.
Clint.
Transportation for a loaf of bread is an Australian myth Clint. They were murders and prostitutes! :-)
Perhaps the 'loaf of bread' myth is a myth.
http://www.genealogytoday.com/au/articles/convict_research.html
Clint.
I never let the truth get in the way of taking the mickey outof my Aussie friends😂
Tom, having had several years experience both as an operational police officer and a security manager at one of the big three supermarket chains I feel qualified to comment on your analysis of the security arrangements at the tills you describe.
1) Checkout staff should never leave their posts unsecured at any time no matter what. Other staff members should have "followed and challenged" the offenders out of the store, but only then if there was sufficient continuous unbroken evidence, usually CCTV, to prove an offence of theft had just taken place. (Dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it).
2) At no time should store staff put themselves in danger, or for that matter show any violence to suspected offenders, other than in self defence. If they want to fight, let them go, no amount of goods are worth the smallest injury.
3) The police ceased arresting petty theft offenders from stores (shoplifting) years ago if it was at all possible to deal with the matter using the relatively recently introduced fixed penalty notice for criminal offences. Trouble is with that, more often than not, the persistent offender would disappear again until back in the police radar for whatever reason, so a complete waste of time.
4) If the store staff had rung the police, the civilian call taker would have ascertained if there was an imminent threat to life or property, and if not, put the matter at the bottom of the "things to do" pile due to a total lack of police resources, leaving store staff to wait for hours minding a reluctant captive, again placing staff in danger.
5) Members of the public can only detain a suspect if an arrest-able offence (i.e. theft) had been seen to be committed at the current time, never if they "think" one is about to be committed, and not if one had been committed some time ago. The only other time a person can be detained by public is under common law breach of the peace "rules of engagement" - if one has been committed there and then or one is immediately imminent at the time, and an arrest is necessary to prevent the breach of the peace.
So - the store till staff should not have chased the two out of the store.......I became disillusioned with the system long ago and opted out as it was a complete waste of my time!
As I suspect Peter. There's almost no deterrent to petty crime and so it will only increase. It's also interesting how crime figures are reducing ("creative accounting?)
It is also interesting that you now mention decreasing crime figures. Very perceptive of you. While I was a serving police officer in the 1980's/1990's crime reporting was being manipulated to save on the even then dwindling resources. For example, a break in to a dwelling's out buildings was classified as "burglary other than in a dwelling". This had to be investigated by a police patrol, who attended the scene, assessed everything about the incident, including if it was genuine, and whether there would be any benefit from a follow up visit by a scenes of crime officer for possible finger prints etc. This offence was declassified to "theft other" which immediately removed the need of follow up visits by SOCO, and was also a much less serious offence than burglary, and obviously affected crime reporting. This trend has continued, and this and similar declassified offences now have to be reported by the victim (if they think it is worthwhile) over the 'phone with no visit to the scene at all.
I too have a deep mistrust of so called reducing crime figures. What would you do if you wanted to slash policing budgets to the bone? I would probably remove the need for so many of them.
Post a Comment