Description being broadcast on shop staff radios.

prinzeugen

I am sure there was a thread on this but could not find it.

What is the legal situation regarding the following?

I entered a the branch of a major sports clothing chain and as I went upstairs to the mans section I heard, on one of the radios all the staff are issued with, " Watch the guy that's just gone upstairs. He has a blue backpack" followed by a full description of what I was wearing.

Now if I could hear that (they don't use ear pieces) so could every other customer in earshot of a radio.

Anyone that heard that and spotted me in the shop would think I was some sort of shoplifter!

Would that be defamation or similar?

And no I don't look/dress like I am going to rob the place.

doolox

..so I'd could organise a boycott of it.

Its bad enough paying high prices for the stuff they sell and try and find a member of staff to serve you and take your money in good time...often difficult or impossible.

I'd love if you had recorded the offending message but without witnesses or a recording of the defaming communication you have not got a case.

Very stupid of the people employed by the store.

Pro Hoc Vice

doolox wrote: »

..so I'd could organise a boycott of it.

Its bad enough paying high prices for the stuff they sell and try and find a member of staff to serve you and take your money in good time...often difficult or impossible.

I'd love if you had recorded the offending message but without witnesses or a recording of the defaming communication you have not got a case.

Very stupid of the people employed by the store.

Why would he have no case without a recording or being able to bring a person who heard the words?

prinzeugen

I have no proof so no chance of taking it further even if I could afford it.

We use radios in one of my jobs and are to use codewords etc because there is always a few that don't use an earpiece.

Would the words the said in the OP be enough? They never said I took anything but just told the staff to watch me.

hullaballoo

There is no such thing as absolute proof in a legal sense. What we use is evidence to meet a standard of proof, in the case of civil actions, that is the balance of probabilities. In criminal, the prosecution have a higher standard of proof, which is beyond all reasonable doubt.

Anyway, you need to speak to a solicitor as legal advice cannot be given here.

esforum

doolox wrote: »

find a member of staff to serve you and take your money in good time

Probable not an issue seeing as the entire company was following the OP around

goz83

I know I would have approached the staff member to find out who was thick and arrogant enough to spew that crap over the radio. I worked as a security officer a few years back and we were always very careful of what was said over the radio. What happened was not defamation and you were not accused, but i'm sure it was embarrassing.

Boskowski

Not sure how that would be defamation. They're not xcruslly accusing you of anything and the message wasn't directed at the public either. All it says is you look sufficiently badass. Some might be flattered. I'd just try to be more thick skinned tbh.

P. Breathnach

goz83 wrote: »

... What happened was not defamation and you were not accused, but i'm sure it was embarrassing.

Boskowski wrote: »

Not sure how that would be defamation. They're not xcruslly accusing you of anything and the message wasn't directed at the public either....

Come off it. A message that somebody should be watched in a shop carries a strong implication that the person is not to be trusted. That's defamatory in nature. If I heard such a message, I would form the opinion that the person described is a known shoplifter.

And it is difficult to claim that it is not published if staff are wearing receivers that can be heard by anybody in their vicinity,

That said, were I in OP's position, I would not take legal action - a lot of trouble and expense, and an unpredictable outcome. But I would take it up with the management of the business (and allow them to believe that I was contemplating legal action).

goz83

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Come off it. A message that somebody should be watched in a shop carries a strong implication that the person is not to be trusted. That's defamatory in nature. If I heard such a message, I would form the opinion that the person described is a known shoplifter.

For it to have been defamatory, the OPs reputation would have to have been damaged by the comment and the comment would have to have been untrue in the first place. So, while you might form an opinion based on hearing that someone should be kept an eye on, the statement was not defamatory. Embarrassing, yes, but defamation...not even close.

If the message said that the OP was a likely/known shoplifter, then that could be defamation (assuming the op is not a shoplifter), if his good reputation were to be damaged by such a statement.

Lusk_Doyle

Can ones "good reputation" be deemed to have been damaged in such an instance if one was not personally or professionally known to anyone else in the vicinity of the comment at the time?

TheChizler

Wasn't there a successful defamation case recently where the defamation was a security guard saying "you know why" when someone was asking why they weren't allowed into a shop? Is it just me or would this be a similar situation?

If I heard that, I would totally act the prick!
Pick things up, carry them around, put them down somewhere else!

I'd probably spend half an hour doing it, till they got sick of looking at me!

goz83

TheChizler wrote: »

Wasn't there a successful defamation case recently where the defamation was a security guard saying "you know why" when someone was asking why they weren't allowed into a shop? Is it just me or would this be a similar situation?

Link?

The description you have posted could be anything. "you know why" could be:

i'm fobbing you off
you hurt my feelings last time
i want to make out with your sister but you won't let me
you are a murderer/psycho/smelly b@stard

it really could be anything and again....would not be defamation unless ones good reputation was damaged.

gozunda

goz83 wrote: »

Link?

The description you have posted could be anything. "you know why" could be:

i'm fobbing you off
you hurt my feelings last time
i want to make out with your sister but you won't let me
you are a murderer/psycho/smelly b@stard

it really could be anything and again....would not be defamation unless ones good reputation was damaged.

Easily found tbh ...

[Url] http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/woman-who-was-asked-to-leave-river-island-awarded-7-500-1.2498381[/url]

MarkAnthony

Colourable defamation case. As soon as the guard said it to another it was published for the purposes of the act. They would need to rely upon a defence.

People forget court is the final step, not the first. You don't need a cast iron case to make a nuisance of yourself.

TBH I'm with burly on this one. I'd have acted the maggot; I've too much time on my hands though a lot of the time.

Phoebas

Similar to the OP, I've had several occasions where faulty electronic alarms in shops have went off when I was leaving (there was one store in particular that this happened to me a lot, so I was starting to get pissed off that they hadn't resolved the problem).
Anyone seeing this might have formed the opinion that I was stealing stuff.

I wondered if I might have a defamation case.

Not that I would take one - it would be extremely petty, but I considered a faulty alarm going off to be similar to a faulty security guard shouting an accusation.

TheChizler

gozunda wrote: »

Easily found tbh ...

[Url] http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/woman-who-was-asked-to-leave-river-island-awarded-7-500-1.2498381[/url]

Cheers!

I was thinking if that was successful yet so vague then why wouldn't this case be valid in the eyes of a court? The only reason I can think of is that the OP isn't as petty as the person in that case.

Pro Hoc Vice

goz83 wrote: »

For it to have been defamatory, the OPs reputation would have to have been damaged by the comment and the comment would have to have been untrue in the first place. So, while you might form an opinion based on hearing that someone should be kept an eye on, the statement was not defamatory. Embarrassing, yes, but defamation...not even close.

If the message said that the OP was a likely/known shoplifter, then that could be defamation (assuming the op is not a shoplifter), if his good reputation were to be damaged by such a statement.

It very much may be defamation. There are such cases every day in the circuit court.

Pro Hoc Vice

TheChizler wrote: »

Cheers!

I was thinking if that was successful yet so vague then why wouldn't this case be valid in the eyes of a court? The only reason I can think of is that the OP isn't as petty as the person in that case.

Why is it petty? The words amount to a defamation. Ireland is a small place and if someone said if me "keep an eye on him" and such words uttered in public, that could very easily damage my reputation.

TheChizler

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Why is it petty? The words amount to a defamation. Ireland is a small place and if someone said if me "keep an eye on him" and such words uttered in public, that could very easily damage my reputation.

I was saying the "you know why" case was petty. Maybe petty is the wrong word but there could be loads of relatively innocent reasons behind that statement, whereas the "keep an eye on him" gives a stronger implication of then being up to no good. Basically I'm saying this case seems worse.

Pro Hoc Vice

TheChizler wrote: »

I was saying the "you know why" case was petty. Maybe petty is the wrong word but there could be loads of relatively innocent reasons behind that statement, whereas the "keep an eye on him" gives a stronger implication of then being up to no good. Basically I'm saying this case seems worse.

Someone saying "you know why" usually means little or nothing but while being asked to leave a retail business may very well imply the person is a thief. Adding the action of removing a person and the statement of "you know why" would really piss me off if I heard it about another person I would assume the worst of that person.

TheChizler

Agreed. As I said I just feel this is even more direct.

goz83

gozunda wrote: »

Easily found tbh ...

[Url] http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/woman-who-was-asked-to-leave-river-island-awarded-7-500-1.2498381[/url]

Thanks. Completely different situation though. The security guard approached her and asked her to leave while she was in the company of people she knew. While the security guard didn't actually say she was a thief, or anything, the request of her removal from the premises would be enough to defame a person, though I would draw different conclusions from the story tbh.