“Security just stood there and did nothing!”
Over the last few years, the UK retail sector has seen a significant shift in its approach to dealing with theft. One of the most controversial changes has been the widespread adoption of ‘Do Not Detain’ policies by major retail chains. These policies, which instruct security personnel and store staff not to physically apprehend suspected shoplifters, have sparked considerable debate and concern within the industry. How many times have you seen a YouTube video of an incident where most of the comments are related to the security officer standing and doing nothing to prevent a theft? Well newsflash people. It is not because he / she doesn’t want to. They may well lose their job if they acted on their instincts and tried to intervene! While the intention behind such policies may be to reduce the risk of injury and legal liabilities, they have inadvertently caused substantial harm to the retail security industry in the UK in 2024, and are making what was already a substantial problem, immeasurably worse.
How did ‘Do Not Detain’ policies come about?
‘Do Not Detain’ policies began to gain serious traction in the early 2020s, primarily as a response to increasing concerns over the safety of store employees and customers during increasingly violent theft incidents. High-profile cases where store staff or security personnel were injured while trying to detain shoplifters led to calls for a less confrontational approach. Some retailers, concerned about the potential for costly legal action and negative publicity, saw these policies as a way to minimize risk. By instructing staff not to physically engage with suspected criminals, companies hoped to avoid violent confrontations and the associated legal and financial repercussions.
Impact on the Retail Security Industry
While these policies may have been implemented with good intentions, they have had a profound and largely negative impact on the security industry. One of the most immediate consequences has been a significant erosion of the authority and effectiveness of security personnel. Security officers, who are deployed to protect property and prevent theft, find themselves increasingly powerless to fulfil their duties under these constraints.
A P.R. Disaster
Almost inevitably, whenever one of these serious gang related shoplifting events takes place, videos will appear on social media moments later, in most cases taken by one of the offenders. People viewing these videos do not think “thank goodness nobody tried to stop those criminals from taking all those items. Someone could have been hurt……”. The average person looking at this footage will almost certainly think “Why on earth is security just standing there letting those criminals do what they want? What is the point of having security if they do nothing?”
It makes security look lazy / scared / incompetent / poorly trained / complicit / pointless (delete as applicable)
What it does not show is that if the security officer did what every fibre of their being is screaming at them to do, and physically intervene as they are absolutely legally entitled, and trained to do, in many cases, they would lose their jobs or a security company would have to move them to a different contract.
Ineffective Deterrence
One of the primary roles of security personnel in retail environments is to deter crime. The mere presence of a uniformed security officer is often enough to dissuade would-be thieves from attempting to steal. However, the increasingly widespread knowledge that security officers are not allowed to detain suspects has significantly undermined this deterrent effect. Criminals, aware of these policies, are emboldened to commit theft with little fear of any consequences.
This has led to a noticeable increase in shoplifting offences across the UK. According to industry reports, retail theft has risen sharply in 2024, with many stores experiencing losses at unprecedented levels. The situation is further exacerbated by organised crime (ORG) gangs, which have become more brazen in their activities, knowing that security personnel are effectively hamstrung by ‘Do Not Detain’ policies.
Damage to Morale and Job Satisfaction
The impact of these policies extends beyond the practical challenges of theft prevention; they also have a significant psychological effect on security personnel. Being unable to intervene in criminal activities can lead to feelings of frustration, helplessness, and a diminished sense of purpose. The vast majority of security officers take pride in their ability to protect people and property, and these policies can make them feel like they are failing in their responsibilities.
As a result, job satisfaction within the retail security sector has declined dramatically. Many officers report feeling demotivated, and some have even chosen to leave the profession entirely. This has contributed to an already high turnover rate in the security industry, making it difficult for companies to maintain a stable and experienced workforce. The decline in morale also affects the quality of service provided, as demotivated staff are less likely to perform their duties effectively. The universal comment I hear from retail security officers who’s standards have slipped, is “what’s the point?”. In their shoes, I expect that I would feel the same.
Strain on Police Resources
With many security officers now no longer allowed to detain suspects, there has been additional strain on the police. Sadly however, understaffed and underfunded constabularies are already stretched beyond breaking point. As a result, police now rarely attend or investigate shoplifting offences.
Furthermore, the lack of immediate consequences for thieves can lead to an increase in the frequency and severity of theft-related incidents. Criminals who face no resistance are more likely to return to the same location, increasing the likelihood of repeat offenses and creating a more dangerous environment for both customers and staff.
Legal and Ethical Implications
‘Do Not Detain’ policies also raise significant legal and ethical concerns. While obviously intended to reduce the risk of injury and legal liability for retailers, they create a complex legal landscape for security personnel. Security officers may find themselves in a position where they are morally obligated to act (e.g., if a crime is in progress), but are simultaneously instructed by their employers not to detain suspects. This conflict can lead to confusion and hesitation, potentially exacerbating situations rather than resolving them.
Ethically, these policies also raise questions about the responsibilities of retailers to protect their property, staff, and customers. By choosing not to detain criminals, retailers may be seen as neglecting their duty to maintain a safe and secure environment. This can damage the reputation of retail brands and erode trust with customers, who may feel less safe shopping in stores where crime is perceived to be rampant.
Summary
In 2024, the ‘Do Not Detain’ policies adopted by many UK retailers have caused significant damage to the security industry. These policies have undermined the authority of security personnel, leading to a rise in theft and organised crime, and a decline in job satisfaction and morale among security officers. They have also placed additional strain on law enforcement resources and created complex legal and ethical challenges. While the intention behind these policies may be to protect staff and avoid legal liabilities, their unintended consequences have been far-reaching and detrimental to the security industry as a whole.
To address these issues, it is essential for retailers and security firms to work together to find a balanced approach that ensures the safety and security of all parties involved. This may include revising ‘Do Not Detain’ policies to allow for more proactive measures in certain situations, investing in advanced security technologies, and providing better support for security personnel. By doing so, the UK security industry can just maybe, begin to recover from the damage caused by these policies and restore confidence in its ability to protect people and property.
Estimated reading time: 12 minutes
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes