Shoplifting: Who Foots the Bill?
I recently embarked on a shopping excursion to the Oswestry branch of Marks & Spencer. As is my routine, I parked in the car park behind the store, only to find, to my mild annoyance (which seems to be a staple of such outings), that the rear entrance was firmly locked. Not an unusual occurrence, I must say.
So, I proceeded to the front entrance and commenced my shopping, taking full advantage of the nifty self-service facility – a true marvel, I must admit. After selecting my items, I dutifully paid for my purchases, collected my bag, and readied myself to exit. It was at this moment that I espied two store attendants, lurking in close proximity, and I, in my innocence, decided to inquire about the status of the rear entrance. I had a faint inkling that someone might have simply forgotten to unlock it, as has been known to happen.
Imagine my astonishment at their response: I was informed that while exiting via the rear door was permissible, attempting to enter the store through it was strictly forbidden. Naturally, this prompted my inevitable follow-up query: “Why, pray tell?”
Their explanation left me flabbergasted; apparently, this measure was in place to deter “undesirables” from gaining access through the back door. I couldn’t help but seek clarification – by “undesirables,” did they mean shoplifters?
Their response was nothing short of a knowing smile.
I couldn’t resist pointing out the irony that their own customers, the very lifeblood of the store, whose purchases lined the coffers and fattened the dividends of shareholders, were being inconvenienced due to the actions of a few potential shoplifters.
I also inquired, only half in jest, whether, in the unlikely event of them apprehending any shoplifters, they would summon the police. That knowing smile had, by now, transformed into something bordering on a smirk, still without a definitive answer.
As I found myself rapidly losing the will to live, I mustered a token expression of gratitude for their time and exited the store.
So, it was, dear readers, that I took it upon myself to email the venerable M&S head office, requesting a copy of their Shoplifting Policy. Likewise, I dispatched an email to the West Mercia Police, making a similar inquiry. Their responses, however, were quite telling:
- M&S Response:
Good morning xxxx,
Thank you so much for getting in touch. I’m afraid we cannot share that information with customers.
Please stay safe and take care.
Kind Regards
Xxxxx xxxx
Retail Customer Services
Your M&S Customer Service
- West Mercia Police Response:
Good evening,
Thank you for contacting us, I have sent this over to our legal services to see if this is something they can assist with.
Regards
Contact Us – 61776
West Mercia Police
And thus, the curtain falls on this intriguing drama. A seemingly straightforward question to both a supermarket and the police has led to one evading the issue entirely, while the other must consult their legal counsel. One cannot help but wonder, what are they concealing, and what sparks (pun unintended) their apprehension?
But wait, all is not over: Having had some experience in matters such as this I have analysed the response on your behalf from M & S, and here is the result of my analysis:
- Lack of Explanation: The response simply states, “I’m afraid we cannot share that information with customers,” without providing any explanation or reason for this decision. From a customer’s perspective, this can come across as unhelpful and non-transparent.
- Customer Frustration: The use of the phrase “I’m afraid” can be seen as a somewhat passive way of delivering a negative response. It doesn’t provide any substantive information or attempt to address my inquiry. This could potentially frustrate customers who are seeking transparency and clarity.
- Evasion of Accountability: The response doesn’t acknowledge my legitimate interest in the shoplifter’s policy or offer an alternative solution. It effectively closes the door to any further discussion or inquiry, which might be seen as evading accountability.
- Generic Well-Wishing: While the closing message, “Please stay safe and take care,” is polite, it feels somewhat generic and disconnected from the main issue at hand, which is the request for information.
This response could be seen as unhelpful, lacking transparency, and somewhat dismissive of my inquiry without providing any substantial reasoning or alternative options. It’s important for customer service responses to balance politeness with informative and helpful content.
Lesson for M & S:
May I venture a possible solution to Spark’s dilemma.
A private prosecution. As with all criminal proceedings it begins with information about the alleged offence and the relevant legislation being put before a magistrates’ court. The court will then decide whether to issue a summons or arrest warrant.
I would submit Milord that it would not take many private prosecutions together with the associated press coverage to deter many future shoplifters.
Answer to my question who foots the bill? We do of course.
Rishi’s U-Turn
On another note, we find ourselves in a curious juxtaposition. Prince William, the Prince of Wales, is currently across the pond in New York, presenting the Earthshot Prize to this year’s winners.
Meanwhile, his father, King Charles III, revels in the company of President Macron, making grand gestures about his commitment to environmentalism by abstaining from asparagus consumption – clearly, a grave sin when it’s out of season. Of course, these esteemed figures and their entourages embarked on transatlantic and cross-Channel flights, emitting heaven knows how many tons of carbon emissions in the process.
And then, on this very same day, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declared what he termed a “U-turn” on his government’s Net Zero policy – oh, the delicious irony! It involved aligning our country’s environmental targets with those of our European counterparts. I confess, my initial reaction was to think that Rishi had finally found his backbone. However, it soon became apparent that he had merely adjusted our environmental goals to mirror those across the Channel.
I wonder if he could persuade the leaders of America, India, and China to do the same?
Perhaps, my dear readers, this is what the Tories mean by “levelling up.” It’s a modest start, I suppose, but it will undoubtedly send the eco warriors and Greens twirling in their collective graves… and beds.
I would be eternally grateful if someone could explain to me what Net Zero and Levelling Up means? In words of one syllable please that a mere country boy such as I can understand.
The Alternative Council 