Today I went to Kmart Ashfield.
The woman conducting the bag searches was very rude and impatient. When she wanted to see into my backpack she said "bag" - no "please" or "can I"
Has anyone had any trouble with bag searches with Kmart, in particular with the Ashfield(NSW) branch?
If so what did you do?
I find it so unpleasant I'll avoid this store altogether. Also there are no signs either inside or outside saying that Kmart would be conducting bag searches.
It's a condition of entry into most stores.
Treat it as a part of the experience - pre-empt by opening your bag and having any receipts on top. They'll just glance, wave you through and say thank you!
this ^^^
^^is not legally sound. Ffs
Do these people seriously think just because there is a sign out the front saying it, the store can do what they want?
How about “no refunds”
“Free crack”
Hmmmm
@2025: They can though. They make bag searching a condition of your entry to the store although they are not allowed to touch anything inside your bag and they are not allowed to search any bag smaller than an A4 piece of paper.
You as the shopper have a choice to make. Either accept their condition of entry and allow them to search your bag upon departure, leave your bag at home or shop elsewhere/online.
If you refuse to allow them to search your bag the store can ask you to leave, refuse to sell you any goods/services or call police if they suspect you have shoplifted.
At the end of the day if you haven't shoplifted and have nothing to hide wouldn't it be far easier just to let them look in your bag and short-circuit all the drama that comes with refusing the bag search?
If you refuse to allow them to search the store can… call police if they suspect you have shoplifted.
Lol, no.
Well, yes. They can call police, but they can’t prevent you from leaving. To be clear, only police (no, not even security) can detain on reasonable suspicion.
Stop giving wrong advice.
At the end of the day if you haven't shoplifted and have nothing to hide wouldn't it be far easier just to let them look in your bag and short-circuit all the drama that comes with refusing the bag search?
Yes and no. I show my bag coz minimum wage retail assistant, no need to be a d*ck to them. However, the drama as you call it would be caused by the store not properly training their staff.
@Vote for Pedro: Yes, I never said you couldn't leave. I used to work in retail and was trained never to try and detain or force people to remain in the store.
@Morphio25: Fair enough. The implication of you post was ‘show your bag or we’re getting the cops and you’re not going anywhere’.
Imagine the call
Shop: hi police come quickly
Police: what happened
Shop: they wouldn’t open their bag
Police: …
Shop: come quickly please help
Police:… lol
@Vote for Pedro: My post does not imply that at all. Those are simply the options the store has, at least in the state that I live in.
Imagine the call
Shop: hi police come quickly
Police: what happened
Shop: they wouldn’t open their bag
Police: …
Shop: come quickly please help
Police:… lol
That is not at all how the call would go. The store would likely say to police that they suspect someone has just committed theft and refused to show their bag upon departure from the store along with a description of that person. The police would then try to locate that person and can use their powers to conduct a lawful search of that person and any bags in their possession.
I'm not sure how I'm giving "wrong advice" as you so eloquently put it. If anything you're the one giving wrong advice.
To be clear, only police (no, not even security) can detain on reasonable suspicion.
Security guards can detain a shoplifter until police arrive if they have observed you shoplifting themselves.
At the end of the day if you refuse a bag search then you are creating an issue for staff/security at the storefront (i.e. causing drama). Just because you don't legally have to do something doesn't mean you shouldn't. You could just show your bag, the storefront attendant has a quick look and says 'Thank you very much' and you both move on with your days, that interaction having taken <5 seconds assuming that you haven't actually stolen anything.
If every person decided they didn't want to allow their bag to be looked at the store might decide they need more security guards, store detectives or simply more employees to work in their stores to deter shoplifters. The cost of that has to come from somewhere and I guarantee that it won't come from the shareholder's pockets, it will come from yours in the form of an increase in the cost of the goods the store sells.
@Morphio25: The police would do nothing of the sort. Its absolutely rubbish. The police would ask ‘did you witness the person take the item and not pay for it’ if you answer in the affirmative, they then have reasonable grounds based on your statement and willingness to give evidence in court to take the action you describe. If the answer is no you did not witness it and they just didn’t show their bag, the police would 100% not stop and search anyone.
Security guards can detain a shoplifter, yes that is true, but so can anyone (they have no more power than an ordinary person)
A person who doesn’t show their bag is not a shoplifter. You are intentionally making points to mislead.
@Vote for Pedro: My point is a sign at the front of a shop does not override the law.
I am well within my legal rights to refuse a bag search.
I bet we are the only population that bends over and let’s big corporations treat us like this.
Nothing to hide? Pffft. Let’s flip that around. We are their guests. We should be treated with respect. I’ve got nothing to show.
Most of them don't even pay attention to what's in there. I remember one time the person on the door asked an adolescent girl to open her bag and she said "it's a joey" and proceeded to show him. He didn't even notice that there was a baby kangaroo head sticking out the top of the bag.
Did they check the pouch?
Did you just assume the gender of the kangaroo?
It’s their right. Have signs up out front stating it as condition of entry
It's not a right, it's a request. Just like any other question, they have a right to request but not to force you to disclose your privacy. If you don't give them permission to look then they may invoke their right to deny you entry/service.
It’s condition of entry to inspect your bag. It’s in the terms and conditions at the front of the store . Call it what you want right or request. If you want to enter the store they have right to request to see inside your bag.
Of course as below if you don’t want them to search your bag just don’t enter the store. But if you do enter the store they can ask to see inside your bag
It’s in the terms and conditions at the front of the store
Technically that's not legally binding.
If you say no and carry on walking, they can't physically stop you. (There may be different levels where they may be allowed, but they can't stop you for just refusing a bag check). The general staff at the door will not restrain you. Store security will normally stand in your way, but will not touch you unless you cause a disturbance and they will "suggest" you come back to the store to sort it out. They use the appearance of authority to coerce you to wait for the police, but if you keep on walking and they have no proof of shoplifting (and from my understanding of working in stores they need to have seen you shoplift themselves, not another staff member) they cannot detain you.
As you say they have a right to request….but you also have a right to refuse.
Honestly, most of the time the person on the door will just be the youngest/laziest/closest staff member, and will not have been trained more than "this is what you look for". Don't take it out on the staff member.
@Almost Banned: Even with the sign, they have no legal right to search you bag. They can request and you can refuse. If you refuse they can ask you to leave and prevent re-entry. That still doesn't give them the right to search your bag against your wishes.
They can sue for damages
Provided there are damages. Unless you've shoplifted (which is a different matter) what other damages could they sue for?
QLD Gov
"If a customer refuses to allow a check, you can ask them to:
*leave the shop
*not return until they agree to follow your conditions of entry."
ACT Police
"However, even though a customer may read the sign and enter the store he/she is under no legal obligation to allow a search of their bags, even a visual search. The business may ask to see inside the bag, but if refused they cannot demand."
NSW Fair Trading
"Bag checks are voluntary. Retailers can only conduct a bag check if you agree. However, if you refuse to allow a check, you may be asked to leave the shop and not return until you agree to a bag check."
FindLaw.com - and I saw other legal sites using the exact same wording.
"It’s important to note that not only can a customer refuse to undergo a bag check but in the event that the store forcibly conducts a search against the person’s wishes, a retailer may potentially find themselves in trouble for assault."
@dizzle: From NSW Fair Trading website-
“ Many shops and public venues have a bag checking policy as a security measure and to prevent theft.
This page outlines your rights when a business representative asks to check you bag.
“If you enter a store with signage clearly advising bag checks as a condition of entry, you are agreeing to this condition of entry and therefore, a bag check.”
"Bag checks are voluntary. Retailers can only conduct a bag check if you agree. However, if you refuse to allow a check, you may be asked to leave the shop and not return until you agree to a bag check."`
https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/buying-products-and-servi…
So what I said 👆 above is not incorrect
@Almost Banned: Actually, I have just thought of another option.
I suppose they could sue for specific enforcement - but that is also extremely unlikely and unlikely to be granted.
So, I guess it depends on you - do you want to abide by the contracts you voluntarily enter into, or do you intend to breach them.
@Almost Banned: So if someone signs an employement contract that gives them below minimum wage it's OK because they signed it…Or does the law provide rights outside of the contract they signed?
How about terms and conditions on a warranty (by purchasing you obviously accepted those terms) that limit your rights with ACL?
Or can rights provided by the law overule agreements that people voluntarily enter into?
@Almost Banned: It isn't a contract. Go back to your contract law classes. Doesn't fulfil the elements.
@dizzle: We were always told that we requested, and if they refused then the best we could do is call security and bar them from entry to the store again. Of course you can't physically stop them from entering the store, so again, you'd have to call the security for that. Basically it's an empty threat.
@RSmith: In a way it is. If you refuse a bag search and they force search you, that can be considered assault. If they detain you that can be considered unlawful restraint/imprisonment and also assualt in certain cases.
However the signs themselves aren't illegal (according to Fair Trading they are actually a legal requirement necessary for store staff to even ask to look through your bags), they just don't tell the full story as to the customers rights.
Condition of entry, NOT a condition of exit.
Arrest, or detain with consent, or it's unlawful.
Officeworks Bankstown has a similar problem.
Maybe it's cultural?
@[Deactivated]: Condition of entry to have bag checked on exit. If you enter, you've agreed to the condition.
@42: According to that logic I can have my own "Condition of shopping" that enforces a mandatory 50% discount and the retailer has to abide by it … All I've to do is scribble it on a sticker and wear it on me … Once the cashier scans the items it will be enforceable …
I walk out every single time, even if someone asks to look into my bags. Once a Aldi cashier wanted to look into my bag and didn't scan my items … I just walked out and went shopping next door.
No. Wrong. Stop giving wrong advice.
They cannot force you. What they can do is prevent you entry next time. However, if they try to force you, and you have not taken anything, then they are up for falsely detaining you.
Do not mistake ‘ask’ and ‘force’. Also do not mistake civil agreements vs criminal detention.
Most likely they will call security and detain you. One way or another, if they wish so, they will check you're bags, and yes, it's a right.
I have never had an issue when asked to inspect bags, in fact, at times I even offer before being asked, yet you get all sorts of idiots that make it difficult on themselves as well as staff.
They can only legally detain you if they reasonably believe you are stealing. Refusing a bag check, by itself, is not sufficient evidence to form such a reasonable belief.
@trongy: Wrong. They cannot detain you for reasonable belief. Only police have that power.
They (security or any person for that matter) can detain you if they saw you take an item, not pay for it AND you have exited the store (as in crossed the boundary). The key is they need to have seen you do it and not lost sight of you from the moment you picked up the item to the moment they detained you.
Even then its not open and shut, just prima facie.
Detaining you without proof can actually get them into BIG trouble.
For WA:
"A retailer may not forcibly search your bag, but may detain you until police arrive if they suspect you of theft. They must be quite certain an offence has occurred because if you are wrongly detained you can consider legal action."
https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/publications/ask-us-your-righ…
So they are personally risking being charge with false imprisonment (or something of that nature, not a lawyer, etc) for the chance they might find say a $5 block of chocolate that you owe the store for.
Can you provide links to show that they have the legal right? Otherwise you are lying.
Why don't you provide a link showing they do not have the legal right. Otherwise you are lying.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not the person who denies the claim.
Just like if you want to claim God exists, you need to provide the evidence, not the person who claims God doesn't exist.
From the link provided, it says:
"Even if a store has a policy of checking bags, this is not their legal right."
"security guards or anyone else who works in the shop cannot touch any of your possessions."
"If they use force at all, they may be committing a common assault."
"But if you refuse, all they can really do is ask that you to leave and not to return in the future."
@Euthyphro: You are correct. You claimed they can not legally search the bags, so provide the proof.
The sign is already posted on the shop front allowing bag checks, you claim it's not legal. Please provide the proof ???
If a shop displays a sign at the front of their store and this lists the conditions of entry (and they are not unreasonable) and you enter the store, you have given implied consent to follow these terms and conditions and have entered into an agreement that you will adhere to these terms and conditions upon entry.
At any time, the store can invoke its terms and conditions that you agreed too by entering and remaining on their property. At this point, they can only "ask" or "request" from you anything that would be covered under the terms and conditions of entry.
As the customer, you also have the right to refuse to answer or comply with any request. If you refuse, you have broken the terms and conditions that you agreed to and the store is well within their legal rights to ask you to leave their store immediately and to not return until you adhere to their terms and conditions or they can outright ban you from returning, to which, if you do return, you could be forcibly removed and possibly charged under trespass laws.
Here is a link to the NSW Code of practice from NSW Fair Trading that outlines each parties rights and responsibilities.
Do you read any random piece of text written somewhere?
99.9% do not and therefore do not agree with it. The shop could easily enforce reading the "conditions" and make you sign for it … it would cause a line up and most potential customers would probably go to the competition.
@dragonos81: It's the same with any terms and conditions. You don't read all the T&C's every time you sign up to a website to update your phone, but it not reading them doesn't stop them from existing.
This forum is literally littered with examples of people not reading their car purchase contract. Not reading terms and conditions does not absolve you from adherence to those conditions
@pegaxs: In case of a car purchase you sign that you read it, never did so when I entered a shop.
And hiding something gets the same treatment as deceiving fine print - it's invalid.
@dragonos81: Then you need to look up the laws surrounding "implied consent". (Maybe the car sales contract was a bad example, but the point remains about not reading it and then claiming "well, I didn't know that was on the contract")
Implied consent comes about more like an IF/THEN/ELSE statement. Basically, how it works is, "These are our rules, by entering this property, you agree to be bound by these rules". Walking over the property boundary and into the shop is you signing that you agree with the terms and conditions.
IF you enter this premises
THEN these are the rules you agree too
ELSE don't come in.
Your ignorance of terms and conditions does not make them become invalid or non-existent. And if they are hiding them, then that could be a defence, but as soon as they show you or tell you the T&C's and you still refuse to comply, they can ask you to leave.
Any private property owner has the right to revoke your right to be on their property at any time and if asked to leave, you must leave. If the condition of you to be on their property is that you must submit to a random bag inspection and you refuse, you can be asked to leave, and if you don't do so immediately, you are committing trespass and they then have the right to forcibly remove you and/or call police.
@pegaxs: Lets be clear though, the bag search t&cs are only good for preventing you from entry in store next time. They do not serve any other legal function.
To prevent you entering the store next time they need to advise you upon entry or any other time while in the store. They can ask you to leave. If you don’t comply, then it is trespass (potentially).
It’s only trespass if you don’t leave when asked.
@Vote for Pedro: I agree. They are basically not worth the plastic sheet they are written on. 99% of the time, you are asked about a look in your bags after you have purchased everything you need and are on your way out… (ie: closing the gate after the horse has bolted.)
"Can I look in your bag please?"
"No, I dont consent"
"Well, I'm going to have to ask you to leave the store and not come back…"
"LOL… ok, champ"
But, ignoring the T&C is not going to make them magically disappear or make them invalid. Ignorance is not considered a defence in law.
It’s only trespass if you don’t leave when asked.
Exactly what I said above. There has to be a request and then a refusal for it to be trespassing. (And note, that request does NOT have to be verbal, it can be as simple as a "keep out" or "do not knock" sign.)
But, ignoring the T&C is not going to make them magically disappear or make them invalid. Ignorance is not considered a defence in law.
Can you clarify? Seems two concepts are conflated here
@Vote for Pedro: Not sure what part you don't get…
If you enter private property (ie: a shop/store/supermarket/bank), you are agreeing to any terms and conditions they set out as part of being granted permission to enter their property (written or verbal conditions). Shops/stores/supermarkets/banks/etc are NOT public spaces. They are private property and the property owner issues you with a license to be on their property, providing you behave as set out in their terms and conditions. Thi9s license can be revoked at any time you breach the T&C's.
Your ignorance of these terms and conditions (ie: "I didn't bother reading them") does not absolve you of any breaches of these conditions. Ignoring something is not deemed a defence. (ie: not agreeing with/not seeing a speed limit sign doesn't mean you get to continue speeding)
The only time you could make a defence about not agreeing to the T&C's would be if they were not displayed anywhere, you were not verbally offered this information in lieu of no signage or they were mounted in a place that you would not be expected to see them (ie: on the ceiling at the back of the store)
Some people seem to think that because they didn't physically sign a contract, they are not bound by these conditions. They are wrong. There is expressed acceptance (ie: signed contract) and implied acceptance (ie: if you do this, you agree to that).
It's a bit like this;
You invite someone into your home.
There is a sign at the door that says "no shoes to be worn in the house".
The invitee walks past your sign and doesn't see it/care about it/ignores it/etc, and keeps their shoes on as they walk through your house.
You stop them and say "The sign said that I need you to remove your shoes in my house"
They say "No"
You are then able to ask them to leave, as the condition of entry into your house was "no shoes to be worn in the house." and they have broken this condition by refusing to remove their shoes.
If they refuse to leave, you are then able to remove them using reasonable force or call the police and have them charged with trespass.
The visitors ignorance of the written rules does not invalidate these rules. Furthermore, when these conditions were verbally reinforced, the visitor doesn't have an option to use ignorance at this point and must either comply with the conditions, or, leave.
@pegaxs: 99% of what you write is irrelevant. Just like the sign at the store.
You can be asked to leave a private premise by a person apparently in charge of the premise for any reason regardless of the terms and conditions. Failure to leave when asked may constitute trespass. Your shoes example is baffling and shows a complete lack of understanding of the law.
For a place of business, such as kmart, there is an implied right for me to enter. That right only ceases when I’m asked to leave by a person apparently in charge.
Just because there are terms and conditions means nothing until you are asked to leave.
Non compliance with those terms does not allow any criminal action against you. That is, you cannot be detained for not complying with the t&cs.
I really am struggling to understand the point you are trying to make.
It’s their right.
They can only really ask. They still need to ask for your permission.
If the sign says: It's a condition of entry that you will be body searched on exit. Is that also a right?
Don't they do that to people at the airports? I have seen it on border security.
I am talking about KMart specifically.
At the airport, there is even no sign at all. It is enforced by the law.
That's the Airport, which is a Federal umbrella, not even remotely similar to Kmart.
@Sheep Whisperer: Not only is it federal, airport security is covered under specific legislation that makes them very different to any private shop. And even then that special legislation prescribes only limited personnel and limited circumstances - the typical duty free shop at the airport has no more right to search on suspicion of shoplifting than K-mart.
You can just walk away and refuse the bag search. They can ban you from entering the store but they're not going to unless you actually were stealing.
It’s Coles group, banning someone is last resort and barely enforceable, they won’t do it
Kmart is not part of the Coles group. Kmart is owned by Wesfarmers. Coles Group was demerged from Wesfarmers in 2018
They don't check your ID on the way in, so unless you're horrible enough to be memorable and encounter the same greeter next time - then they won't even realise the next time you come in. And it's not like they can actually stop you from entering as they can't physically detain or obstruct you.
It's Kmart, you're not walking into LV or Hermes. Who knows what is happening in her life that could be affecting her manner. Just move on.
Has anyone had any trouble with bag searches with Kmart, in particular with the Ashfield(NSW) branch?
So what trouble did you have? all they did was ask to see in your bag.. ???
This is a shock to you? never heard of it before… ??
Bikies
Whoever decided to put the checkouts in the middle of the store and make a separate sole bag checker responsible for everyone should IMO be fired.
Agree so much. It's bad for everyone
I dislike the whole layout of Kmarts now. There's no natural flow to the store.
I assume that's on purpose to make people turn and see things they wouldn't normally buy, but in my case I rarely go to the second half of the store - once i've gone halfway through the store and I'm at the counters I purchase or leave.
I do know there's a science behind store layouts and that's why places like Ikea are set up a certain way. But Kmart makes no sense to me now.
Agreed. I've been here for several days now surviving on lollies and free wi-fi. Send help!
That's how Kmart (and a lot of other stores) want it. It's the Gruen Transfer.
In shopping mall design, the Gruen transfer is the moment when consumers enter a shopping mall or store and, surrounded by an intentionally confusing layout, lose track of their original intentions, making them more susceptible to making impulse buys. It is named after Austrian architect Victor Gruen, who disapproved of such manipulative techniques.
So have a plan/list of what you need/want and get in, and get out. Also a thought did cross my mind, and I'd like to think Kmart did too, that they wanted to prevent shoppers bunching up at the entrance/exit side of store waiting to 'check out'.
Sure, and that's why I said there's a science behind the layout. But the Gruen transfer is much more than just confusing layouts. It's why they put the milk at the back of the store, it's why they like a bakery smell to influence the taste buds, it's playing the right type of music, it's keeping the store at the right temperature.
But there are stores that use that in the layout much better. The example of Ikea, the route through the store is marked out (so you don't think it's confusing), but the shortcuts have small labels, so that most people (and I'd suggest its above 90% of customers) walk through the entire store and pass every category. Supermarkets have the layout which encourages people to walk down every aisle
As I mentioned the Kmart layout makes me leave the store half way through. At least for me it defies the purpose, and the fact that not many other stores do the same (even companies owned by the same owner like Target) leads me to beleive it's not a very successful strategy.
@dizzle: I find this fascinating - like perfumes and make up at the front of department stores and the stuff that people actually want at the back.
And the carpet/tiles. Tiles where they want you to walk faster and carpet to slow you down.
Music - restaurants playing faster music when they want patrons to eat and go, slower when they want them to hang around longer.
I ignore them and walk out. Feel bad for them, but the design of the store is moronic.
simple psychology really lol
To avoid crowding at the checkouts as most people are there to browse.
Oh poor OP, K-mart hurt dem feels
Cheer up it's going to be a new year.
Another new year to find another small slight to whinge about. Yay!
Must be living a pretty comfy life to be annoyed by such a small inconvenience.
Surprised people are offering their bags to the person at the entrance without them asking. Have not done this myself for a long time.
That's often to side step the annoyance of being picked out and held up. I think I've done it once or twice, and I didn't stop walking, hell I don't even know if they could see in my bag on the angle it was, I didn't look at them as I was talking to the other half.
I do have a personal rule that if I do open my bag then you aren't putting your hand in it. You can look but not touch.
I agree that courtesy would have cost the employee nothing, and made the experience more palatable for everyone.
I know if I were the store manager I would expect better behaviour from my staff.
However, it is also a pretty crappy job and done under generally unpleasant circumstances, so I also would probably have just gone on with my day.
Well a lot of school kids would leave their bags outside grocery stores (inside shopping centers) just because of this reason that their bags may be inspected at any time of them being inside the store (usually while leaving).
But common dude, they are just doin their job, I have seen many rude customers, and staff members, you don't have to add yourself to that bitc*y behavior list. Why can't you have your bag inspected? you having drugs or stealing something? If so then stop doing that. If not its a minor inconvenience.
You should be great-full that you are in Australia, not somewhere like in Arabic Emirates (where you may get extremally harsh punishment for even something as small as forgetting to put an item in your cart on belt (aka as a genuine mistake, seen that happen a few times)).
And as everyone already mentioned, stores have entry requirements, (just like those covid check in ones for which all staff have been abused at least once for). If you dont like policies of a place, don't be in that place (or leave your bags in car etc).
Problem solved
I find bag checks uncomfortable too, not against it, just makes me feel weird to think we all need to be checked to see if we’re stealing. I usually just walk past the person and nod/smile unless they ask to look, which they rarely do. Sometimes if I have a pram with me they’ll do a head tilt to see underneath but they wouldn’t really be able see anything. I do find the bag check a bit odd as if you’re actually stealing I would have thought it would be concealed so the person checking wouldn’t see anything.
As I was walking into a kmart store one night recently, I overheard the staff talking/warning other staff about how this woman just tried to walk out with a trolley half filled with stuff.
I don’t doubt that it happens. I usually just keep the receipt in my hand but they never inspect closely enough to cross reference what’s on the receipt vs what I’m carrying.
I used to work in a supermarket. You have no idea how common this style of theft is. Some people just YOLO their trolley out of the door, others just load up a duffle right in front of everyone.
Nobody even seems to notice, staff and customers are in their own little world. I once saw cam footage of some teens sweeping an entire shelf of deodorant into a bag directly in front of the cash registers. Nobody realised until someone decided to investigate the total emptiness of the shelf.
I never really considered it to be any of my business. More often than not culprits were low SES so it was hard to judge them too harshly for stealing essential items or food.
No-one starves in this country and their are numerous support groups - I could eat out almost every day for free in my small town with the support network. Although drinking, smoking, drugs, gambling, fast food and a large car would cut into a fixed income substantially. It's not fun although stealing is bad for community and society.
@[Deactivated]: I understand the sentiment and generally agree.
The issue is that most of the perpetrators I've personally witnessed have been women. I have sometimes considered whether these people are in abusive relationships where their finances may be dominated by things such as their partner's alcoholism, for instance. From what I can gather of the community around where I worked, it was a plausible scenario.
I'm not condoning it, but it was hard to take the side of the company I worked for given they recently had to return $300 million in unpaid wages, have little regard for OHS, and previously owned the lion's share of poker machines in this country (prior to splitting with endeavor).
Don't get me wrong, I have no ill feelings for the company. They were good to me and provided an income while I studied, while giving employment to many.
I'd wager most theft was committed by people who had the money. You'd be surprised by the amount of kombucha people stole. Massive generalisation, but I always imagine people with expensive activewear pinching those.
Exactly
OMG think beyond yourself perhaps.
Ashfield has a HUGE problem with theft and petty crime, especially around Ashfield Mall, for a whole range of reasons, so perhaps think about why she is asking for a bag inspection before getting all hurt and upset about it.
When entering a store what are they searching for in your bag? Leaving yea maybe 🤔 you picked something up from inside but when entering ???
don't make eye contact or acknowledge, just keep walking.
if you must, just point to your headphones/earpods and say, "sorry, just on a call" and keep walking.
It’s not their job to look in your bag, they are greeters 🤣 - just show them your receipt or say you didn’t buy anything and walk off - and covids still spreading, they can (profanity) right off. You’ve served yourself, bagged it up yourself, then they want to check 🤣. That’s what the alarms are for
You do realise that if you simply present your bags for a quick look none of the “trauma” that affected you so badly would have happened? Would it upset your day to be simply pleasant and helpful to that person. Personally I feel sorry for people with such a banal and boring job.
Wow, you must be such a big strong tough man. The ladies must be all over you. The world needs more heroes like you to show the weak who is boss. Except you should have broken her fingers and arm as well, it is the only way they will learn