Do you object to BAG INSPECTIONS at stores

[nero_bolt]

?

Do you object to BAG INSPECTIONS at stores?

Do you object to staff asking to inspect your bag? (they are only doing their job) 

Will you shop at a  store that asks to inspect your bag or will you go elsewhere? 

Do bag inspections and security checks help to stop shop lifting and keep prices down?

If you object WHY?

Do you think that objecting to a bag inspection makes a person look guilty or they are guilty? 

Rememer that its a condition of entry at just about every major /medium/small store in Australia 

[i-once-was-bump]

---

@happyroo_bunji wrote:

---

@daydream**believer wrote:

bravo happyroo.

I hope you dont come across too many like the few on here who claim they dont show their bag when asked.

To be honest, i think they are full of it and always show their bags anyway

---

Not too many thankfully, but they have always been middle age women who carry around handbags that are big enough to be almost overnighters.  When people object, it does make me slightly suspicious.  I start thinking 'what have they got in there?'

---

The kitchen sink?

I don't think I am middle age because I doubt I will live to 112 but I carry around a huge bag because I only want one bag to worry about.

It has my tablet or netbook, my knitting, my latest puzzle book, leather gloves and then the usual makeup, mirror, purse, phone, etc.

[azureline**]

My sister carries a massive bag around, we call it the suitcase........and after being asked several times to open it, she now leaves it in the car!

[imastawka]

My family calls my bag the tool kit!   Doesn't matter what you want - Grandma's

got one in her bag!

And I am never asked for a bag inspection

[silverfaun]

I suppose if you sold trashy stock that pollutes the environment you wouldn't care who stole it  because it's so cheap, hiring a security guard would have you out of pocket no matter how much stock you lost to thieves 

[donnashuggy]

That's very nice silverfaun, what else do you think?

[the_hawk*]

---

@**meep** wrote:

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:

Take a 'special' type of person to go to those lengths.

I think meep asked above  - has anyone in Australia ever done that or is it just a  fantasy some people have?

---

Oh dear me why not do some research rather than write stuff you think is right.

Legal risks
It is important to understand that private security personnel possess no
greater powers than those of the owner, occupier, director or manager of
premises. Like any citizen, owners or their agents have the right to make a
"citizen's arrest" in circumstances where they perceive that a crime (such as
larceny in a shopping centre, for example) has been committed. The only
limitation is that owners and citizens have to be right about their suspicions
or face a civil suit (for false imprisonment or assault) if they are wrong or
unable to prove their case. By contrast, the public police's actions are
usually authorised by special legislation which provides a defence against
any such action, the defence of reasonable suspicion..

ref http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/business/sarre.pdf

and http://defamationwatch.com.au/?p=374

lots more if you look

---

The cases were either dismissed or lost on appeal

http://www.timebase.com.au/news/2011/AT535-article.html

Arrest -- Powers of citizen -- Detention of customer by store detective pending arrival of police -- (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 s 352(1) Arrest -- Wrongful arrest -- Standard of proof where crime alleged.

The appellant was arrested by a store detective and detained until a police constable arrived. After spending about half an hour making inquiries and taking a statement the constable arrested the appellant on a charge of larceny. He was acquitted of this charge. An action by the appellant for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment against the store and two of its employees, including the person who had arrested him, was dismissed.

In the circumstances, the court was satisfied, that the store detective had been able to show that she had had reasonable and proper cause to suspect, on the balance of probabilities, and that offence had been committed, and thus the arrest and subsequently undue detention had been neither unlawful nor unreasonable.

@the_hawk* wrote:

they have no special powers, they could make a citizens arrest but that would get the company sued for unlawful detention (false imprisonment ) and a number of other things for many tens of thounsands of $$ when they found nothing.

"false imprisonment" (when found nothing)  does not automatically guarantee an entitlement to compensation.

---

its no wonder you don't understand when you don't read to whole outcome, only part was dismissed and still cost several thousand $$

I really wonder if people actually believe what they think is correct if they repeat it many times or do they believe others will believe it if they a bombarded with mis truths

[cherry*135]

If customers don't mind showing stores their shopping bags and handbags (over the prescibed size in some States) on exiting the store, there isn't any  real issue there. They have made that decision themselves.

They don't mind abiding by the store they are in, bag checks policy... nothing really to go on about, in that regard.

[polocross58]

Initially, once supermarkets and department stores had seen-off most Mum and Dad grocery stores, the bag-checks were conducted on staff when they departed the building

That's because then as now (and as shown via endless research) it was known that staff/employees are responsible for 75% plus of 'shrinkage' i.e. theft

Storemen were top of the list of thieves but general floor staff were also proven to be light-fingered

So to begin with, when department and similar stores took the place of main-street retail, there were still staff behind counters who assisted, who rang up the sale, gave change and presented the customer with a wrapped or bagged item.  There were no security persons at doors seeking to explore customers' bags.  Instead, staff were required to open their bags for .. usually .. a floor or assistant manager

Then counter-staff were dispensed with and customers were required to serve themselves before filing to a check-out and waiting to pay.  That was a massive saving on staff.  Prices did not reflect the savings.  And customers were also treated to the indignity of being treated as if they were guilty -- and required to prove their innocence by offering their bags for inspection --- even though research continued to show that staff remained responsible for over 75% of theft

That figure remains the same today

People steal from their places of employ

and the general public has been programmed --- along with the children by their side --- to accept that 'Innocent until proven guilty' no longer applies in this country

Joke with the bag-inspectors.  Tell them you have a refrigerator in the bag they're stretching their neck to inspect.  Watch them stare at you uncomprehendingly.  They're dead in the vast majority of cases.  Their humanity has been destroyed by the degrading task they're required to undertake to earn their living

Everyone lost

Dignity most certainly lost

Multinationals grew fat

and all so people can buy imported carp amongst stink and simmering unrest

[acacia_pycnantha]

Today I visited Big W at the Westfield shopping mall.

Before I went into the store I stood outside and watched for a while as a shop assistant, dressed all in black stopped everyone leaving the store (those not leaving via a checkout) and asked to look into their bags.

She even reached her hand into some of them and shuffled the contents.

Of particular interest to her was a  smartly-dressed young  woman of African appearance who had a small shoulder purse, which the shop assistant spent quite a bit of time examining, again shuffing around, hands-on and hands-in, with the contents.

On leaving the store, this young woman was rolling her eyes and shaking her head in what looked like shock and astonishment at such treatment. Her bag was about half the size of a sheet of A4 paper.

Then I looked up and down at the front of the shop trying in vain to find and read the bag-policy sign which should (by law?) be prominently displayed for me to read before entry.

Eventually i went up to the shop assistant and asked me if she could tell me where the signs were.

She couldn't. (because there were none?) . . . anyway, i explained to her that as she was policing the store's bag-policy, then surely she must know where the signs were located. But, no, she didn't.

I asked her what was the wording on these signs, and she had to think for a bit before saying they said something like. . .  Big W resereves the right to ask people to present their bags for inspection.

Meanwhile, people were passing us leaving the store with bags un-checked . . . oh, the horror!

and the shop assistant was losing her thin veneer of helpful friendliness and become a bit agitated.

Eventually she snapped at me (no attempt at politeness) that she would raise my concerns with management.

I bet she didn't though. She was obviously eager to get back to her gestapo-tactics and make more people feel intimidated.

She even stopped some people who were entering the store to check their prams and trolleys and and one occasion said to a customer that she couldn't bring this particular brand of (opened) bottle of water inside, because Big W also sold that brand.

Most people voluntarily opened their bags on leaving without being asked.

What have we become, that we feel we must prove our honesty to officious shop assisants as if if were a normal thing to do, to be considered by them (as a matter of course) to be a person suspected of shop-lifitng, all because we had the gall to enter their store and to leave without buying anything?

[daydream**believer]

Yeh, sorry but i dont believe that story at all