or not, seeing as though he got caught.

From what I read yesterday, staff in the store only became suspicious after a number of occasions – and then had a camera placed specifically to watch, which then caught him.

So how many other times – and people – had there been?

But the figures are well known. Stores have fully automated stock control systems and so they know, whenever they take stock, exactly how much has walked. It's factored in the prices, and is, seemingly also predictable within 5%.

The thinking behind open plan shops is precisely to tempt and encourage every customer by surrounding them with stuff, all at their fingertips, without obstruction, tarted up and often bolstered with seductive displays and price offers, the whole point is to make the stuff irresistible to pick up. That works. They want you to want it. It's just that this temptation process does not discriminate between bona fide purchasers, and those who can't or won't pay. Most will also pay, but they are also paying a small premium to pay for the stuff the dishonest will nick.

Thats all perfectly true.

Its also true that they do protect higher value goods such as bottle of spirits with tags that cannot be taken through the self service machines, so its a perfectly reasonable conclusion that most goods in a supermarket are not of sufficient value to justify the extra expense of security tagging, hence the acceptance of pilfering.


On a slightly different subject, listening to the AWT case on the radio it would appear that he has accepted a police caution to avoid a court appearance and criminal record - are police cautions a matter of public record in the same way that court convictions are ?

If not, then who released the information, police or Tesco's ?

Well, it's been decided by someone that it's in the public interest to know.
I think it's in the public interest to know who decided.

Jail serves three purposes.
a) Protection of the public for the duration of the sentence.
b) Deterring the crime.
c) Punishment.

a) is unnecessary, b) hasn't worked and c) is too harsh for this instance.

EDIT ... whoops, I missed out d) Rehabilitation ... which he's getting anyway.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition ...

Or Worrall-Thompson's publicist, on the basis that there's no such thing as bad publicity particularly given he's "seeking help" for this terrible affliction of forgetting he has to pay for stuff like the rest of us.

Can I see another stint in the Jungle next autumn. Maybe Im cynical but when a so called celebrity gets into a spot of bother, whether its serious or not so serious, they get a stint in the Priory, or other stress related medication and then get back on screen as though nothings happened, but when its mister or misses average the punnishment is more.

Don't worry Minty, he won't get banged up for shoplifting, thats reserved for those who do it through hunger and poverty.

Or in a bit of widespread looting. Which does – as noted earlier – point to different approaches to law and order for different people.

They are public info, papers usually get lists of them under FIA requests. I reckon that there is a long list of people from the supermarket through to the police station who would tip the wink to the press where there's a celeb involved.