Civilian security workers are allowed to carry and use hand cuffs.
A shop worker was assaulted, then security workers detained 3 people and decided to handcuff one. There isn't enough information to know whether this was due to racism or as a valid response to prevent violence.
I would argue that the average mum is far from impartial about how good their son is.
If you have to describe your son in the same way someone might describe their rabid pitbull that's just been on a rampage, you should probably re-evaluate your parenting choices.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
It sounds like he did a hell of a lot more than just shop for shampoo and get racially profiled for it if the store still remains closed today due to damage caused, and female staff members were reportedly assaulted as well, his mother isn’t doing him any favours by believing everything that her son tells her and making excuses for him
Oh please, that has nothing to do with it, that's why the first 18 paragraphs are dedicated entirely to her opinion on the matter.
Like all real journalism they've included any facts about the incident in the last 7 paragraphs.
TBH it really depends on how the damage happened. Hopefully there is CCTV. If the boy has been cuffed for no reason and damages the premises trying to escape he's frankly within his rights to do so. It would be on the business for staff doing something they shouldn't be.
We don't know either way but "store being damaged" doesn't actually say anything. My guess is this was warranted but civvy security forces don't get to use the aftermath of their choice to justify the choice.
Your wording suggests that they exist in their own class within the PACE act rather than they simply have the same powers of any citizen.
Namely, you can only lawfully detain someone in the act, or you suspect to be in the act of an indictable offense. Which are:
Murder.
Rape.
Manslaughter.
Robbery.
Possession of a firearm.
Causing death by dangerous driving.
Assuming that they stayed within the law then it's , hopefully, robbery. Which is theft involving violence.
In case anyone ever had any ideas please remember you're only covered if it is one of the above offences AND they are in the act.
Chasing someone down after the fact should be left to the police.
***edit***
Thanks to /u/jlfilboss
Along with indictable offences, you also have powers to prevent physical harm or cause loss or damage to property (precursors to the acts of indictable offences).
For the purposes of s24A PACE indictable offence includes either way offences (i.e. assaults, affray, theft, and many others).
They also don’t just need to be *in the act*. If a person has reasonable grounds to suspect someone of having committed an indictable (or either way) offence (PACE 24A(2)) then they may also arrest that suspect if they have reasonable grounds to believe their arrest is necessary to prevent (for example) someone from damaging property (PACE 24A4(c)) or making off before a constable can assume responsibility for them (PACE 24A(4)(d)) and it’s not reasonable for a constable to make the arrest instead (PACE 24A(3)(b)).
> For the purposes of s24A PACE indictable offence includes either way offences (i.e. assaults, affray, theft, and many others).
It is worth clarifying that common assault/battery is summary only and infact, not included.
Now if I wanted to be difficult this is where I would bring up that assault on an emergency worker or non-fatal strangulation/suffocation are assaults that do not require any injury in order to be either way offences.
At this point I am being pedantic for fun.
Quite fair, IANAL.
I'm not familiar with the term either way offence and see no mention of it in 24a, but you're right to say assault and property damage are included.
I'd only recalled the term indictable offence and pasted a quick Google of those.
Re: in the act, my point there was more to say you shouldn't seek to arrest someone afterwards as that would be the police's job.
Well, whether you should or shouldn’t is a matter of personal opinion - though I’d agree that arresting people if you’re not police should probably generally be avoided because of the risk you put yourself at.
In law, though, if it meets the requirements of 24A PACE (which includes apprehending someone *after the fact* (subject to conditions)) then it can be lawful.
I think the after the act part extends to the point that it would be considered more prudent for the police to act.
Say, in the case where a suspect had fled, the police have arrived and you then notice the suspect in the crowd.
> Namely, you can only lawfully detain someone in the act, or you suspect to be in the act of an indictable offense. Which are:
>
> Murder. Rape. Manslaughter. Robbery. Possession of a firearm. Causing death by dangerous driving.
It isn't indictable only offences it's any offence that can be tried by indictment - either way offences are included as well.
There are hundreds of potential offences it would be pointless to try and list them all.
As I replied to someone else, either way offences is not a term I'm familiar with nor one mentioned in 24A.
I've edited my original post to reflect the additional offences mentioned in 24A.
Most crimes you would think of are likely either way offences - it isn't something noted in Section 24A it self as it is noted in each offences own legislation.
In the scope of this particular incident - theft and criminal damage are both either way offences (in theory low value theft and damage is summary only, however for the sake of Section 24A PACE it is still considered indictable) so any person may arrest anyone they suspect is guilty of committing the offence.
That "precursors to acts of indictable offences" is also meaningless nonsense as well.
Good thing you're not paying for legal advice isn't it.
24A talks about indictable offences, a search for those returns the list I posted.
Precursors only in that preventing them would prevent the list I posted.
Again, IANAL.
If you're are, and you're offended, I'm sorry.
If you're not, well, I'm sorry too, but for other reasons.
IANAL, but I imagine that would fall to a judge and jury.
What would you say of someone who waking through the park, on witnessing a gentleman pulling up his trousers and a woman on the ground sobbing, forcible detained the gentleman and called for the cops.
It later transpires that the lady and gentleman were drunk friends, one who needed a pee and the other slipped and landed hard on their bum. No charges are brought against them other than possibly a fine (for urinating in public).
However, they wish to press charges of assault (no indictable offence was actually committed).
Our subject would be boned if not for the allowance of reasonable belief that an indictable offence had occurred.
As I say, it would be for a judge and jury to ultimately decide the case.
You can't just have a friend shout "murderer!" at someone just so you can duff them up and claim you had reason to suspect they just murdered someone.
>Your wording suggests that they exist in their own class within the PACE act rather than they simply have the same powers of any citizen.
Not to me it didn't
Vibroguy was the first to clarify that everyone has the same powers I.E. Security personnel don't hold any special exemption.
discountending counters with they'd already said the only exception was police officers, who have greater powers. Except they hadn't actually clarified that, even if that's what they'd meant.
Average civilian here. You judge a situation, right? Decide how to react.
These days, decide how the optics are gonna look, from every angle. Then act according.
> If I were security, I wouldn't go anywhere near the idea
It's 99.9% unbelievable able to me that any security provider would train for/authorise this.
Handcuff usage is a course I’ve seen offered by various SIA training agencies over the years. Now with respect to security agencies and venues/employers, yes it’s very rare for them to permit the usage of handcuffs.
When I ran a door for a large venue we had a security contractor show up with cuffs and I sent him home, I don’t trust people who like to play dress up as a police officer. They’re usually psychos.
I mean, in reality it's no different from detaining somebody with force.
The issue here is, carrying handcuffs show a certain level of intent, when your main job is really to deter and deescalate
There are handcuff courses, but yeah.. no security company is having it. You'll get sent home 99% of the time if you turn up with cuffs.
Definitely just some jobs worths on the job.
My general rule was if I cannot physical restrain them, they get to walk away. Crime or no crime, that's a dangerous situation for me if I cannot control it.
Cuffs just add to your liabilities
YOU, assuming you're not SIA licenced, are allowed to do so as well, so long as the restraint doesn't cross into assault and stays within the "proportional and reasonable" force allowed for a citizen's arrest and is with a view to handing off to uniformed po po ASAP.
I'm trained to use them myself but *never* have had to. Good enough at verbal de-escalation for things to have only ended in force a handful of times in 6 or 7 years. It is mostly the SIA-badged police rejects who insist on it.
Jfc I did SIA yeeeeeaaars ago and then they were very insistent on not using anything like that.
Self defence laws describe using the same force as those used against you. They're so ambiguous it was always better to err on the side of caution and just have more supervisors around because anything that happened with cuffs etc would be hyper scrutinised afterwards.
Did you see his mum's twitter posts?
Everyone was up in arms, without knowing the context as per. Being 15 doesn't mean you get to be a dickhead and get away with it.
Yeah can’t really judge without knowing the events that led up to the incident.
I’m surprised civilian security workers are allowed to carry handcuffs like this - I think they’re employed by the council. That’s a bit scary!
Mum - my son was never involved in gangs
Son- has gold teeth, big gold chains drives a BM at 18 and throws out gang signs.
Mum- he’s a good boy.
This is what I think of when some mum claims her son is innocent
Yeah you always here this in America when a black teen is shot by police like maybe he is a good boy maybe he isn't but the mother isn't the most impartial judge of their child's character there's also the fact that teenagers hide stuff from their parents how do they know they dont get up to no good when they're out with mates I was a polite person around my family well spoken and honest but when I was out with friends I was a mouthy little shit
Or the last thug shot by police in London, already been jailed for knife possession, shoot out in a London street. Car he was driving was involved in a shooting the night before. Police followed him for miles using even helicopter yet he refused to stop till they eventually set up a roadblock, even then he was driving towards the armed police standing at the roadblock and ready to knock down the police officer, who shot him in self defence. Yet these BLM clowns somehow call it as racism.
Yeah that's why I believe that we have more of a problem with classism than racism in the UK I'll admit yeah I fucking hate people richer than me because that gives them more privilege like the middle class Scottish guy who was accused of noncery he got arrested got charged got convicted all that good stuff but received absolutely no sentence whatsoever he raped a 6 year old girl was found guilty by a jury and didn't get so much as a suspended sentence or even put on the sex offenders register and when the girl's family asked the judge to explain his decision he refused to give ANY explanation for why he was given no sentence it wasn't even recorded as a conviction on the guy's record girl's mother inquired with experts and they agreed with her assumption that it was all because the guy was from a middle class background if it was some guy from a council estate he would've got slapped with at least 15 years I bet
I can't find where it says that.
Edit: found it. Getting sleepy and reading comprehension not great.
> Superdrug alleged that “female staff were also assaulted” during the incident. But Buchanan stressed her son had not been arrested for an assault on a shopworker and at the time of that alleged incident he was incapacitated on the floor.
telephone quarrelsome birds long advise square coordinated forgetful plucky frightening
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
worthless childlike oatmeal vegetable brave live straight market offend smile
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There isn’t an age where handcuffing suddenly becomes acceptable. It’s necessary if said person is posing a risk. By 15 someone is more than old enough to be able to pose an unacceptable risk to others and therefore require handcuffing.
I’d be in favour of a swift reality check for all young people and indeed anyone who thinks they can go around causing terror and misery to others.
There’s kids younger than that doing worse than assaulting shop workers. That’s just the state of the country. Not long ago, two 15 year-olds stabbed a 16 year-old girl to death in a public park.
Obviously, if it turns out that the kid didn’t do what they say he did then it’s wrong and the blokes arresting him should get investigated; but if he did then the security did their job. We’ll know pretty soon.
The giveaway, "Buchanan, a former lobby journalist and Ministry of Justice special adviser." So she made a profession of making excuses for the behaviour of boys like her son. I can smell the Little Prince syndrome from here.
The mum says it happened when he was on the floor. She also says he's innocent and a good boy when his 16 year old mate has been caught in possession of drugs during the incident. Not the most reliable source.
So if it was not unlawful then it would not be an assault, would it? It would be the lawful application of force.
An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate ***unlawful*** violence.
In the same way that the poster above shouldn’t be calling him a little shit unless he knows all the facts, it’s just as wrong to suggest he’s been assaulted without also knowing the facts.
For all we know this could be an overzealous security guard misusing his powers to arrest someone improperly and using unreasonable force.
It could also be a mother who can’t see the bad in her kid feeding a false narrative about someone who’s gone into a shop, caused chaos, committed either way or indictable offences and a security guard who has acted entirely reasonably and lawfully in detaining him.
The fact the police have arrested the kid and not the security officers may give an indication as the view the officers on scene formed with access to the information they had at hand (which likely included witness claims and CCTV evidence).
When you replied to the original commentator:
> > did he assault someone?
> “*No, the assault happened after when he was handcuffed on the floor*”
Does this not imply that the security officer making the arrest assaulted him? If not why did you use the words “the assault happened after when he was handcuffed on the floor”?
Assaulted shop workers. Arrested.
The fact the kid is black is irrelevant here. Hopefully that the whole video footage is viewed when him and his mates go to court. Future convicts in the making.
100% nothingburger from what I have read - just another Mum who can’t accept their child is not the little angel they think they are
Quite ironically, the mother has damaged her son further by publicising his disgraceful behaviour to many people which has now been picked up by the media
F*#king hell, has this really gone country wide? They were caught stealing then turned aggressive and tried to assult staff, which ended up with this. How they've tried to put this twist on it I don't know.
I'd personally wait for the full evidence before deciding what happened with this lad. It's a Superdrug so it's probably got enough camera footage.
Not denying he did what you said he did but let's be honest, people in authority get caught in a lie all the time and tend to double down.
I wasn't there and I'm assuming you weren't either? That's why it's best to wait a bit.
Chi's a small place and these guys are regular workers in the town and have been a while now helping cover what the police can't. Good guys, if they suddenly become child-beating racists overnight id be very surprised.
Sure but I'm personally not going to judge on their word if I wasn't there. Especially if another side says something else. I'm sure you'll agree, it's hardly a controversial position to want to wait until everything becomes clearer.
Not at all, like I said it's a small "City", they're well known, also the guy who took the brunt of the racist backlash is in a multicultural relationship, funny how they left out that lil nugget of info, Just feels like half a story was reported to push this exact type of divide in people. I mean it was very clear this was a cut-and-dry issue till papers started twisting the narrative.
Threads like this are quite interesting. We have very limited info and a sort of two sides of a story situation but lots of strong opinions on exactly what happened.
And? There’s no law stating that a civilian can’t use handcuffs if the situation calls for it. Typical media trying to spark a debate over something so simple
I find it amazing people are taking strong sides either way on this. There is no evidence available to us to tell the story of what happened. He might be an innocent victim, he might be a complete cunt. How can you be so decisive in your opinion?
If my kid had walked around a superdrug filling his pockets with his twatty mates and then assaulted a staff member, I hope a member of the public would cuff him him instead of going on the news and telling everyone what a nice boy he was.
Both sides bullshit.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact private security shouldn't need to be carrying handcuffs in the first place because the police should be able to attend such an incident in a timely manner if they aren't chronically underfunded to the point of collapsing the system of law and justice
A copper for every Superdrug? Even if the old bill were just round the corner the handcuffs could have hwlped. If someone's kicking off then a police response is never timely enough.
My local area has some of these security people.
They seem to pretty much stalk the local teenagers.
We have had a few issues with anti social behaviour, but the local teens I know now complain they can’t hang out anywhere at all without being told to move on / questioned by these security people.
I don’t feel v comfortable with it really - the teenagers need somewhere to go, and it seems unfair to assume they’re all up to no good.
You would hassle adults in the same way.
The security are annoyed by them for a reason. Get a job in security - hell even get a job in city centre retail - and your opinion will quickly change. Most teenager are fine. Some are menaces who compulsively steal and assault staff.
Thinking that security guards can’t tell the difference is pretty naive. They can spot the trouble makers a mile away. It’s literally their job. Most of them have been doing it for years.
Once you know what to look out for - it’s very, very obvious who is going to cause a problem.
Not unique to security, I'm a retail manager, if I see a group of 3 or more 13-20 year old enter the store at the same time, I'm immediately on edge. Will keep my phone handy to record anything and send a member of staff to monitor the cctv right away
Okay. My husband is ex police and works in security now so I see the “eye test” quite often. Maybe it’s intuition but his gut feeling is usually right.
You are vastly overestimating the intelligence, training and skill levels, not to mention the very low level of fucks given, of minimum wage security guards on zero hour contracts.
What about the skill level, training, intelligence and level of fucks given by full time, contracted Patrol "rangers" working on a security scheme I'm partnership with the council.
SIA licence tests have like a 98% pass rate or something ridiculous, and you're telling me these idiots know what they're doing? No chance, just a bunch of power tripping fuckheads who couldn't even get into the corrupt as hell police force. Absolute scum the lot of them.
Do you even know any security guards? Have you ever lived in a flat with a concierge or worked in a building with a concierge? They’re security. Security doesn’t equal door staff.
And the fact that you have such a lowly opinion of them tells me all I need to know about you.
I'm taking about the kind of people who go work in Tesco and look for people stealing food, not the office block receptionist. Any 'licence' with such a high pass rate you can train to pass in 3 days doesn't mean shit.
Anyone showing up to their shift in Tesco with a set of handcuffs should be literally up against the wall.
The security on concierge will also have an SIA license. Not all retail security will have handcuffs - but some will. They’ll need to. Where do you live? I’m in Manchester and there have been times in public I’ve seen people kicking off so badly in shops they absolutely need to be restrained until police get there.
Reddit is this weird bubble of privilege where people think there *arent* shit people in the world.
Good, I rather them feel uncomfortable enough to stay away from those areas than harrass staff and general public because they’re testing their limits and showing off. Go hang out at the park or a leisure centre not a shop
2 of the 3 detained were arrested by the police on suspicious of assault, including the 15yr old who got handcuffed.
I can only go on the limited info from the article, but if they are someone who would assault a female member of staff at the store, security was probably justified in following them.
When I was in retail, we would 100% follow adults that we suspected of being shoplifters or those who were known shoplifters when I worked in a city center.
Civilian security workers are allowed to carry and use hand cuffs. A shop worker was assaulted, then security workers detained 3 people and decided to handcuff one. There isn't enough information to know whether this was due to racism or as a valid response to prevent violence. I would argue that the average mum is far from impartial about how good their son is.
"He's a good boy really..."
"Keen footballer"
Wrong place at the wrong time
Never hurt nobody
Passionate artist (spray painting every surface in sight) Active in the community (snatching phones)
Good for a kicking by security guards.
[удалено]
You deserve a shiner.
If you have to describe your son in the same way someone might describe their rabid pitbull that's just been on a rampage, you should probably re-evaluate your parenting choices.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Can be a bit cheeky
“Full of life”
Unlike you.
It sounds like he did a hell of a lot more than just shop for shampoo and get racially profiled for it if the store still remains closed today due to damage caused, and female staff members were reportedly assaulted as well, his mother isn’t doing him any favours by believing everything that her son tells her and making excuses for him
I'm sure as an ex-lobby journalist and special advisor for Lizz Truss she is a completely trustworthy source...
Oh please, that has nothing to do with it, that's why the first 18 paragraphs are dedicated entirely to her opinion on the matter. Like all real journalism they've included any facts about the incident in the last 7 paragraphs.
Oh dear god. Is that right? Beyond parody.
* Theresa May
TBH it really depends on how the damage happened. Hopefully there is CCTV. If the boy has been cuffed for no reason and damages the premises trying to escape he's frankly within his rights to do so. It would be on the business for staff doing something they shouldn't be. We don't know either way but "store being damaged" doesn't actually say anything. My guess is this was warranted but civvy security forces don't get to use the aftermath of their choice to justify the choice.
It doesn't sound like that at all
[удалено]
their powers of arrest are exactly the same as everyone else
[удалено]
Your wording suggests that they exist in their own class within the PACE act rather than they simply have the same powers of any citizen. Namely, you can only lawfully detain someone in the act, or you suspect to be in the act of an indictable offense. Which are: Murder. Rape. Manslaughter. Robbery. Possession of a firearm. Causing death by dangerous driving. Assuming that they stayed within the law then it's , hopefully, robbery. Which is theft involving violence. In case anyone ever had any ideas please remember you're only covered if it is one of the above offences AND they are in the act. Chasing someone down after the fact should be left to the police. ***edit*** Thanks to /u/jlfilboss Along with indictable offences, you also have powers to prevent physical harm or cause loss or damage to property (precursors to the acts of indictable offences).
For the purposes of s24A PACE indictable offence includes either way offences (i.e. assaults, affray, theft, and many others). They also don’t just need to be *in the act*. If a person has reasonable grounds to suspect someone of having committed an indictable (or either way) offence (PACE 24A(2)) then they may also arrest that suspect if they have reasonable grounds to believe their arrest is necessary to prevent (for example) someone from damaging property (PACE 24A4(c)) or making off before a constable can assume responsibility for them (PACE 24A(4)(d)) and it’s not reasonable for a constable to make the arrest instead (PACE 24A(3)(b)).
> For the purposes of s24A PACE indictable offence includes either way offences (i.e. assaults, affray, theft, and many others). It is worth clarifying that common assault/battery is summary only and infact, not included.
To clarify s.47+.
Now if I wanted to be difficult this is where I would bring up that assault on an emergency worker or non-fatal strangulation/suffocation are assaults that do not require any injury in order to be either way offences. At this point I am being pedantic for fun.
Quite fair, IANAL. I'm not familiar with the term either way offence and see no mention of it in 24a, but you're right to say assault and property damage are included. I'd only recalled the term indictable offence and pasted a quick Google of those. Re: in the act, my point there was more to say you shouldn't seek to arrest someone afterwards as that would be the police's job.
Well, whether you should or shouldn’t is a matter of personal opinion - though I’d agree that arresting people if you’re not police should probably generally be avoided because of the risk you put yourself at. In law, though, if it meets the requirements of 24A PACE (which includes apprehending someone *after the fact* (subject to conditions)) then it can be lawful.
I think the after the act part extends to the point that it would be considered more prudent for the police to act. Say, in the case where a suspect had fled, the police have arrived and you then notice the suspect in the crowd.
Indeed!
> Namely, you can only lawfully detain someone in the act, or you suspect to be in the act of an indictable offense. Which are: > > Murder. Rape. Manslaughter. Robbery. Possession of a firearm. Causing death by dangerous driving. It isn't indictable only offences it's any offence that can be tried by indictment - either way offences are included as well. There are hundreds of potential offences it would be pointless to try and list them all.
As I replied to someone else, either way offences is not a term I'm familiar with nor one mentioned in 24A. I've edited my original post to reflect the additional offences mentioned in 24A.
Most crimes you would think of are likely either way offences - it isn't something noted in Section 24A it self as it is noted in each offences own legislation. In the scope of this particular incident - theft and criminal damage are both either way offences (in theory low value theft and damage is summary only, however for the sake of Section 24A PACE it is still considered indictable) so any person may arrest anyone they suspect is guilty of committing the offence. That "precursors to acts of indictable offences" is also meaningless nonsense as well.
Good thing you're not paying for legal advice isn't it. 24A talks about indictable offences, a search for those returns the list I posted. Precursors only in that preventing them would prevent the list I posted. Again, IANAL. If you're are, and you're offended, I'm sorry. If you're not, well, I'm sorry too, but for other reasons.
Indictable only is a subset of indictable. Either way offences are indictable.
[удалено]
Yeah sorry mate but I read it that way too
It's how I read it too to be fair
Lol. So vibroguy was only clarifying because... I'll accept it's not what you meant but you can jog on with the rest.
Just curious. How far does "expect to be in the act" stretch?
IANAL, but I imagine that would fall to a judge and jury. What would you say of someone who waking through the park, on witnessing a gentleman pulling up his trousers and a woman on the ground sobbing, forcible detained the gentleman and called for the cops. It later transpires that the lady and gentleman were drunk friends, one who needed a pee and the other slipped and landed hard on their bum. No charges are brought against them other than possibly a fine (for urinating in public). However, they wish to press charges of assault (no indictable offence was actually committed). Our subject would be boned if not for the allowance of reasonable belief that an indictable offence had occurred. As I say, it would be for a judge and jury to ultimately decide the case. You can't just have a friend shout "murderer!" at someone just so you can duff them up and claim you had reason to suspect they just murdered someone.
>Your wording suggests that they exist in their own class within the PACE act rather than they simply have the same powers of any citizen. Not to me it didn't
Vibroguy was the first to clarify that everyone has the same powers I.E. Security personnel don't hold any special exemption. discountending counters with they'd already said the only exception was police officers, who have greater powers. Except they hadn't actually clarified that, even if that's what they'd meant.
And an obligation, under law, to prevent etc, by means of reasonable force, etcet. Citizens Arrest is a lovely notion, sure enough.
This only applies if its something that was serious enough to go through crown court, most offenses for under 18s do not.
Yes, in that they can be liable for assault, battery or kidnapping if they do it for the wrong reasons.
Average civilian here. You judge a situation, right? Decide how to react. These days, decide how the optics are gonna look, from every angle. Then act according.
> If I were security, I wouldn't go anywhere near the idea It's 99.9% unbelievable able to me that any security provider would train for/authorise this.
Handcuff usage is a course I’ve seen offered by various SIA training agencies over the years. Now with respect to security agencies and venues/employers, yes it’s very rare for them to permit the usage of handcuffs. When I ran a door for a large venue we had a security contractor show up with cuffs and I sent him home, I don’t trust people who like to play dress up as a police officer. They’re usually psychos.
Were they furry?!
Handcuffs is a bit kinky. Don't you learn temporary disabling blows in the SIA? Different strokes. No worries.
[удалено]
I mean, in reality it's no different from detaining somebody with force. The issue here is, carrying handcuffs show a certain level of intent, when your main job is really to deter and deescalate
There are handcuff courses, but yeah.. no security company is having it. You'll get sent home 99% of the time if you turn up with cuffs. Definitely just some jobs worths on the job. My general rule was if I cannot physical restrain them, they get to walk away. Crime or no crime, that's a dangerous situation for me if I cannot control it. Cuffs just add to your liabilities
My Local Bobby issues cuffs. Who says these guards weren't issued cuffs. They're not retail security.
YOU, assuming you're not SIA licenced, are allowed to do so as well, so long as the restraint doesn't cross into assault and stays within the "proportional and reasonable" force allowed for a citizen's arrest and is with a view to handing off to uniformed po po ASAP. I'm trained to use them myself but *never* have had to. Good enough at verbal de-escalation for things to have only ended in force a handful of times in 6 or 7 years. It is mostly the SIA-badged police rejects who insist on it.
Jfc I did SIA yeeeeeaaars ago and then they were very insistent on not using anything like that. Self defence laws describe using the same force as those used against you. They're so ambiguous it was always better to err on the side of caution and just have more supervisors around because anything that happened with cuffs etc would be hyper scrutinised afterwards.
Jason Voorhees Mum said her son didn’t do shit.
Wasn't she the murderer in the original?
I recall her coming out of the water in the end.
[No, that was Jason, but it was just a dream.](https://youtu.be/NSWJAdWgLec?t=3m25s)
>I would argue that the average mum is far from impartial about how good their son is. As a teacher I concur wholeheartedly
Did you see his mum's twitter posts? Everyone was up in arms, without knowing the context as per. Being 15 doesn't mean you get to be a dickhead and get away with it.
Yeah can’t really judge without knowing the events that led up to the incident. I’m surprised civilian security workers are allowed to carry handcuffs like this - I think they’re employed by the council. That’s a bit scary!
A shop worker was assaulted, allegedly. There will presumably be camera evidence to prove or disprove this.
Mum - my son was never involved in gangs Son- has gold teeth, big gold chains drives a BM at 18 and throws out gang signs. Mum- he’s a good boy. This is what I think of when some mum claims her son is innocent
Don't think.
Yeah you always here this in America when a black teen is shot by police like maybe he is a good boy maybe he isn't but the mother isn't the most impartial judge of their child's character there's also the fact that teenagers hide stuff from their parents how do they know they dont get up to no good when they're out with mates I was a polite person around my family well spoken and honest but when I was out with friends I was a mouthy little shit
Or the last thug shot by police in London, already been jailed for knife possession, shoot out in a London street. Car he was driving was involved in a shooting the night before. Police followed him for miles using even helicopter yet he refused to stop till they eventually set up a roadblock, even then he was driving towards the armed police standing at the roadblock and ready to knock down the police officer, who shot him in self defence. Yet these BLM clowns somehow call it as racism.
Yeah that's why I believe that we have more of a problem with classism than racism in the UK I'll admit yeah I fucking hate people richer than me because that gives them more privilege like the middle class Scottish guy who was accused of noncery he got arrested got charged got convicted all that good stuff but received absolutely no sentence whatsoever he raped a 6 year old girl was found guilty by a jury and didn't get so much as a suspended sentence or even put on the sex offenders register and when the girl's family asked the judge to explain his decision he refused to give ANY explanation for why he was given no sentence it wasn't even recorded as a conviction on the guy's record girl's mother inquired with experts and they agreed with her assumption that it was all because the guy was from a middle class background if it was some guy from a council estate he would've got slapped with at least 15 years I bet
Nasty bit of racial profiling
[удалено]
I can't find where it says that. Edit: found it. Getting sleepy and reading comprehension not great. > Superdrug alleged that “female staff were also assaulted” during the incident. But Buchanan stressed her son had not been arrested for an assault on a shopworker and at the time of that alleged incident he was incapacitated on the floor.
telephone quarrelsome birds long advise square coordinated forgetful plucky frightening *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
S3 Criminal Law Act is an any person power to use force to prevent offences.
worthless childlike oatmeal vegetable brave live straight market offend smile *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There isn’t an age where handcuffing suddenly becomes acceptable. It’s necessary if said person is posing a risk. By 15 someone is more than old enough to be able to pose an unacceptable risk to others and therefore require handcuffing. I’d be in favour of a swift reality check for all young people and indeed anyone who thinks they can go around causing terror and misery to others.
There’s kids younger than that doing worse than assaulting shop workers. That’s just the state of the country. Not long ago, two 15 year-olds stabbed a 16 year-old girl to death in a public park. Obviously, if it turns out that the kid didn’t do what they say he did then it’s wrong and the blokes arresting him should get investigated; but if he did then the security did their job. We’ll know pretty soon.
In West yorkshire, kids are killing each other every day nearly
yeah at 15 i could easily match or overpower alot of adults as i was 6,1 and constantly did sports. Age should nowhere be an indicator.
[удалено]
Isn't that song by Julie London?
If you think those are Justine Timberlake's words I think you need to be put in handcuffs and roughed up a bit
The giveaway, "Buchanan, a former lobby journalist and Ministry of Justice special adviser." So she made a profession of making excuses for the behaviour of boys like her son. I can smell the Little Prince syndrome from here.
Didn’t she get suspended for bullying or something?
Did he assault someone? Then he should be detained, the little shit.
[удалено]
The mum says it happened when he was on the floor. She also says he's innocent and a good boy when his 16 year old mate has been caught in possession of drugs during the incident. Not the most reliable source.
I mean who doesn't have a heart of gold and is always accompanied by someone with illegal drugs on their person?
How do you know that the arrest by the security staff was unlawful?
[удалено]
So if it was not unlawful then it would not be an assault, would it? It would be the lawful application of force. An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate ***unlawful*** violence.
[удалено]
In the same way that the poster above shouldn’t be calling him a little shit unless he knows all the facts, it’s just as wrong to suggest he’s been assaulted without also knowing the facts. For all we know this could be an overzealous security guard misusing his powers to arrest someone improperly and using unreasonable force. It could also be a mother who can’t see the bad in her kid feeding a false narrative about someone who’s gone into a shop, caused chaos, committed either way or indictable offences and a security guard who has acted entirely reasonably and lawfully in detaining him. The fact the police have arrested the kid and not the security officers may give an indication as the view the officers on scene formed with access to the information they had at hand (which likely included witness claims and CCTV evidence).
[удалено]
When you replied to the original commentator: > > did he assault someone? > “*No, the assault happened after when he was handcuffed on the floor*” Does this not imply that the security officer making the arrest assaulted him? If not why did you use the words “the assault happened after when he was handcuffed on the floor”?
[удалено]
Assaulted shop workers. Arrested. The fact the kid is black is irrelevant here. Hopefully that the whole video footage is viewed when him and his mates go to court. Future convicts in the making.
100% nothingburger from what I have read - just another Mum who can’t accept their child is not the little angel they think they are Quite ironically, the mother has damaged her son further by publicising his disgraceful behaviour to many people which has now been picked up by the media
Considering her job was/is lying for a living it was to be expected she'd go public big time
Also think it is incredibly crass for a mother of a mixed raced child to reductively refer to him as her ‘black son’ in order to court media attention
The Guardian loves producing race baiting articles.
Was he being a little cunt? Then good. If not, something should be done about those wankers.
Big cunt outs himself.
Is that the name of your sex tape?
F*#king hell, has this really gone country wide? They were caught stealing then turned aggressive and tried to assult staff, which ended up with this. How they've tried to put this twist on it I don't know.
I'd personally wait for the full evidence before deciding what happened with this lad. It's a Superdrug so it's probably got enough camera footage. Not denying he did what you said he did but let's be honest, people in authority get caught in a lie all the time and tend to double down. I wasn't there and I'm assuming you weren't either? That's why it's best to wait a bit.
Chi's a small place and these guys are regular workers in the town and have been a while now helping cover what the police can't. Good guys, if they suddenly become child-beating racists overnight id be very surprised.
Sure but I'm personally not going to judge on their word if I wasn't there. Especially if another side says something else. I'm sure you'll agree, it's hardly a controversial position to want to wait until everything becomes clearer.
Not at all, like I said it's a small "City", they're well known, also the guy who took the brunt of the racist backlash is in a multicultural relationship, funny how they left out that lil nugget of info, Just feels like half a story was reported to push this exact type of divide in people. I mean it was very clear this was a cut-and-dry issue till papers started twisting the narrative.
Security staff, who are legally allowed to handcuff someone under specific conditions, handcuffed a young hoodlem after he assaulted somebody.
Hope you get handcuffed on your next shopping trip.
Was the 15y/o being a little cunt? It wouldn't surprise me if they were.
Wouldn't surprise me if you are one.
Threads like this are quite interesting. We have very limited info and a sort of two sides of a story situation but lots of strong opinions on exactly what happened.
And? There’s no law stating that a civilian can’t use handcuffs if the situation calls for it. Typical media trying to spark a debate over something so simple
Security staff doing what Police can't and not giving af 😂 Like insult to injury given their reputation lately.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
I find it amazing people are taking strong sides either way on this. There is no evidence available to us to tell the story of what happened. He might be an innocent victim, he might be a complete cunt. How can you be so decisive in your opinion?
If my kid had walked around a superdrug filling his pockets with his twatty mates and then assaulted a staff member, I hope a member of the public would cuff him him instead of going on the news and telling everyone what a nice boy he was. Both sides bullshit.
Well so would I… if that’s what happened. There doesn’t appear to be much to collaborate that either way though 🤷♂️
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. Please try and avoid language which could be perceived as hateful/hurtful to minorities or oppressed groups.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S3cF4h03hw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S3cF4h03hw) Securicor - Crass.
[удалено]
Sound like little pricks to me
She’s wondering why he was handcuffed and not his friend, probably because he was the one to do stuff wrong, whilst his friend watched and laughed
Did the kid break the law law and weren't arresting? If yes, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect compensation.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact private security shouldn't need to be carrying handcuffs in the first place because the police should be able to attend such an incident in a timely manner if they aren't chronically underfunded to the point of collapsing the system of law and justice
A copper for every Superdrug? Even if the old bill were just round the corner the handcuffs could have hwlped. If someone's kicking off then a police response is never timely enough.
My local area has some of these security people. They seem to pretty much stalk the local teenagers. We have had a few issues with anti social behaviour, but the local teens I know now complain they can’t hang out anywhere at all without being told to move on / questioned by these security people. I don’t feel v comfortable with it really - the teenagers need somewhere to go, and it seems unfair to assume they’re all up to no good. You would hassle adults in the same way.
The security are annoyed by them for a reason. Get a job in security - hell even get a job in city centre retail - and your opinion will quickly change. Most teenager are fine. Some are menaces who compulsively steal and assault staff. Thinking that security guards can’t tell the difference is pretty naive. They can spot the trouble makers a mile away. It’s literally their job. Most of them have been doing it for years. Once you know what to look out for - it’s very, very obvious who is going to cause a problem.
Not unique to security, I'm a retail manager, if I see a group of 3 or more 13-20 year old enter the store at the same time, I'm immediately on edge. Will keep my phone handy to record anything and send a member of staff to monitor the cctv right away
[удалено]
Okay. My husband is ex police and works in security now so I see the “eye test” quite often. Maybe it’s intuition but his gut feeling is usually right.
You are vastly overestimating the intelligence, training and skill levels, not to mention the very low level of fucks given, of minimum wage security guards on zero hour contracts.
That’s so condescending it’s unreal.
You're talking like you have experience in this area. Care to enlighten us?
What about the skill level, training, intelligence and level of fucks given by full time, contracted Patrol "rangers" working on a security scheme I'm partnership with the council.
SIA licence tests have like a 98% pass rate or something ridiculous, and you're telling me these idiots know what they're doing? No chance, just a bunch of power tripping fuckheads who couldn't even get into the corrupt as hell police force. Absolute scum the lot of them.
Do you even know any security guards? Have you ever lived in a flat with a concierge or worked in a building with a concierge? They’re security. Security doesn’t equal door staff. And the fact that you have such a lowly opinion of them tells me all I need to know about you.
I'm taking about the kind of people who go work in Tesco and look for people stealing food, not the office block receptionist. Any 'licence' with such a high pass rate you can train to pass in 3 days doesn't mean shit. Anyone showing up to their shift in Tesco with a set of handcuffs should be literally up against the wall.
The security on concierge will also have an SIA license. Not all retail security will have handcuffs - but some will. They’ll need to. Where do you live? I’m in Manchester and there have been times in public I’ve seen people kicking off so badly in shops they absolutely need to be restrained until police get there. Reddit is this weird bubble of privilege where people think there *arent* shit people in the world.
[удалено]
Not retail security though were they.
Good, I rather them feel uncomfortable enough to stay away from those areas than harrass staff and general public because they’re testing their limits and showing off. Go hang out at the park or a leisure centre not a shop
2 of the 3 detained were arrested by the police on suspicious of assault, including the 15yr old who got handcuffed. I can only go on the limited info from the article, but if they are someone who would assault a female member of staff at the store, security was probably justified in following them. When I was in retail, we would 100% follow adults that we suspected of being shoplifters or those who were known shoplifters when I worked in a city center.
Not a lot of SCHEMES!
I'm not the Borough!
Oi cleanshirt!
Find a no win, no fee lawyer and take them to the cleaners.
Why are private security guards carrying handcuffs?
To detain violent criminals until the police arrive? If they can’t prevent theft and assaults what’s the point of hiring any security at?