I'm angry with Waitrose

TerriBull

I first read the story in The Guardian yesterday, before other newspapers picked it up, I don't remember it being mentioned then "there was more to it"

Me neither, Terribull.

My son and I were in an Edinburgh Woollen Mill outlet in Oxford when a young man came in, snatched a number of cashmere sweaters from a rail and bolted. My son said to the assistant that he would go after him but she said he mustn’t. It wasn’t company policy to go after shoplifters. That was in 2017. It’s far more blatant now that they’ve got used to the idea that they won’t be pursued.

There are 2 perspectives here which have lead to a sad outcome- for the employee Walker Smith losing his job and bad publicity for Waitrose, that is limited in its ability to respond and present the full picture.

Waitrose is unable to disclose full details in relation to the incident as legally it must protect Smith's employment rights in respect of privacy and confidentiality laws. Waitrose must also legally comply with Health and Safety at Work act regulations and protect the health and safety of its employees in context of shop lifting risks, which applies in this case no doubt. As a result Waitrose has policies in place to protect all its employees with which employees must comply as part of their employment. Walker, by his own admission did not comply with his employment contract responsibilities as he did not follow policy and acted in the moment, out of frustration.

Guardian article extracts from the employee’s perspective: After spotting the thief, Walker “grabbed the bag” from the shoplifter, who snatched it back and, he said, there was a struggle for a few seconds before it snapped. The Lindt Gold Bunny Easter eggs, which retail for £13 each, fell to the floor and the shoplifter made a dash for the exit. Smith said one of the bunnies broke into pieces. He picked a piece and “threw it out of frustration” towards some shopping trolleys, not aiming it at the shoplifter, he said. He was told off by his manager and apologised but the matter was escalated. Smith said he was previously told not to approach shoplifters but the toll of seeing them get away with theft repeatedly spurred him into action. Smith said he regretted how he acted. “When I got home I was punching myself and thinking: ‘Why did I do that,’” he said. After a few days, he was hauled into a meeting with two store managers. “I had a feeling about what was going to happen,” he said. He made a final plea, telling his bosses “Waitrose is like my family” but he was still dismissed. Smith told the Guardian he has been diagnosed with anxiety, which he said his managers were aware of.

Waitrose response: A Waitrose spokesperson said: “We take the safety and security of our customers and our partners incredibly seriously and to do this we have policies in place which our partners are aware of and required to follow.
The spokesperson said the policies must be strictly followed because of the potentially serious danger to life in tackling shoplifters. “As a responsible employer, we never want to be in a position where we are notifying families of a tragedy because someone tried to stop a theft. Nothing we sell is worth risking lives for.” The spokesperson added that they could not discuss individual cases but the correct process was being followed, which included a standard appeals process.

Walker suffered from anxiety, of which he said Waitrose was aware, grabbed the bag, struggled with thief, then threw broken egg pieces in frustration and by so doing admits he broke Waitrose policy, of which he was aware and had previously been told not to approach shop lifters. As he was both aware of policy and been previously warned and still approached a shop lifter, Waitrose, by law, must consider risk of repeated behaviour.

If any harm came to Walker or any others as a result of Walker struggling with shop lifters and throwing items in frustration- Waitrose insurers may fail to pay out in compensation claims and may be held accountable for health and safety at work failures. The risk of Waitrose being sued is also increased in context of Walker's known none compliance with policy and his anxiety diagnosis.

Walker's local Waitrose appeal has failed (we don't know if there were any previous written/verbal warnings on his record or any Occupational Health advice that must be complied with).

However Walker does have the right to take his case to a tribunal for unfair dismissal, supported by his union, if he feels Waitrose has acted unfairly.

A sad case.





. , a shop assistant at a branch of Waitrose in Clapham Junction, south London, was going about his normal duties when a customer stopped him. “They told me someone had filled up a Waitrose bag with the eggs,” he said.

The 54-year-old said the shoplifter was a repeat offender. After spotting the thief, he “grabbed the bag” from the shoplifter, who snatched it back and, he said, there was a struggle for a few seconds before it snapped. The Lindt Gold Bunny Easter eggs, which retail for £13 each, fell to the floor and the shoplifter made a dash for the exit. Smith said one of the bunnies broke into pieces. He picked a piece and “threw it out of frustration” towards some shopping trolleys, not aiming it at the shoplifter, he said.

He was told off by his manager and apologised but the matter was escalated. Smith said he was previously told not to approach shoplifters but the toll of seeing them get away with theft repeatedly spurred him into action. “I’ve been there 17 years. I’ve seen it happen every hour of every day for the last five years,” he said.

“It’s everybody from drug addicts to teenagers nicking bits and bobs or walking out with bottles of wine in their arms. We’re not allowed to do anything.”

He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because “shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough”. This left non-security staff, including Smith, on the frontline of the problem.

Despite this, Smith said he regretted how he acted. “When I got home I was punching myself and thinking: ‘Why did I do that,’” he said.

After a few days, he was hauled into a meeting with two store managers. “I had a feeling about what was going to happen,” he said. He made a final plea, telling his bosses “Waitrose is like my family” but he was still dismissed.

“I tried to stay strong and I didn’t say a word but inside I was crying. They led me out the back door by the bins. I just felt demoralised,” he said. Smith has been diagnosed with anxiety, which he said his managers were aware of.

Before being sacked he had recently moved into his own studio flat after living with flatmates for 25 years. He worries about how he will keep a roof over his head. “I’m not too sure what’s going to happen with this place now. I might be homeless. My confidence is on the floor right now,” he said.

“Waitrose is like my family. My friends are there. I was there for 17 years, I must have been doing something right. I’m not a bad or violent or aggressive person. I just got frustrated seeing this day in and day out and not seeing Waitrose do much about it.”

Retail businesses, particularly supermarkets, have seen an increase in shoplifting. In England and Wales, there were 519,381 shoplifting offences in the year to September 2025, up 5% from 492,660 the previous year, according to data from the Office for National Statistics.

These numbers are narrowly below the record levels seen in the 12 months to March 2025, when a total of 530,643 offences were recorded.

In February, the retail trade union Usdaw said workers faced “unacceptable” levels of violence and abuse, with “evidence showing that two-thirds of attacks on retail staff are being triggered by theft or armed robbery”.

On Friday, the chief executive of Marks & Spencer, Stuart Machin, called on the government and London’s mayor to crack down on retail crime, saying it has become “more brazen, more organised and more aggressive”.

A Waitrose spokesperson said: “We take the safety and security of our customers and our partners incredibly seriously and to do this we have policies in place which our partners are aware of and required to follow.

“In reference to the point on guarding – we make absolutely sure that our shops have appropriate levels of guarding and this is constantly adjusted according to the level of risk.”

The spokesperson said the policies must be strictly followed because of the potentially serious danger to life in tackling shoplifters. “As a responsible employer, we never want to be in a position where we are notifying families of a tragedy because someone tried to stop a theft. Nothing we sell is worth risking lives for.”

The spokesperson added that they could not discuss individual cases but the correct process was being followed, which included a standard appeals process.

my post finished after a "sad case". apologise for not deleting the rest which Id copied and pasted from Guardian article 🥱

Disregard 16.30 post- here is what I meant to post:

There are 2 perspectives here which have lead to a sad outcome- for the employee Walker Smith losing his job and bad publicity for Waitrose, that is limited in its ability to respond and present the full picture.

Waitrose is unable to disclose full details in relation to the incident as legally it must protect Smith's employment rights in respect of privacy and confidentiality laws. Waitrose must also legally comply with Health and Safety at Work act regulations and protect the health and safety of its employees in context of shop lifting risks, which applies in this case no doubt. As a result Waitrose has policies in place to protect all its employees with which employees must comply as part of their employment. Walker, by his own admission did not comply with his employment contract responsibilities as he did not follow policy and acted in the moment, out of frustration.

Guardian article extracts from the employee’s perspective: After spotting the thief, Walker “grabbed the bag” from the shoplifter, who snatched it back and, he said, there was a struggle for a few seconds before it snapped. The Lindt Gold Bunny Easter eggs, which retail for £13 each, fell to the floor and the shoplifter made a dash for the exit. Smith said one of the bunnies broke into pieces. He picked a piece and “threw it out of frustration” towards some shopping trolleys, not aiming it at the shoplifter, he said. He was told off by his manager and apologised but the matter was escalated. Smith said he was previously told not to approach shoplifters but the toll of seeing them get away with theft repeatedly spurred him into action. Smith said he regretted how he acted. “When I got home I was punching myself and thinking: ‘Why did I do that,’” he said. After a few days, he was hauled into a meeting with two store managers. “I had a feeling about what was going to happen,” he said. He made a final plea, telling his bosses “Waitrose is like my family” but he was still dismissed. Smith told the Guardian he has been diagnosed with anxiety, which he said his managers were aware of.

Waitrose response: A Waitrose spokesperson said: “We take the safety and security of our customers and our partners incredibly seriously and to do this we have policies in place which our partners are aware of and required to follow.
The spokesperson said the policies must be strictly followed because of the potentially serious danger to life in tackling shoplifters. “As a responsible employer, we never want to be in a position where we are notifying families of a tragedy because someone tried to stop a theft. Nothing we sell is worth risking lives for.” The spokesperson added that they could not discuss individual cases but the correct process was being followed, which included a standard appeals process.

Walker suffered from anxiety, of which he said Waitrose was aware, grabbed the bag, struggled with thief, then threw broken egg pieces in frustration and by so doing admits he broke Waitrose policy, of which he was aware and had previously been told not to approach shop lifters. As he was both aware of policy and been previously warned and still approached a shop lifter, Waitrose, by law, must consider risk of repeated behaviour.

If any harm came to Walker or any others as a result of Walker struggling with shop lifters and throwing items in frustration- Waitrose insurers may fail to pay out in compensation claims and may be held accountable for health and safety at work failures. The risk of Waitrose being sued is also increased in context of Walker's known none compliance with policy and his anxiety diagnosis.

Walker's local Waitrose appeal has failed (we don't know if there were any previous written/verbal warnings on his record or any Occupational Health advice that must be complied with).

However Walker does have the right to take his case to a tribunal for unfair dismissal, supported by his union, if he feels Waitrose has acted unfairly.

A sad case.

I've previously read of security guard/s being apprehended, possibly sacked for manhandling shoplifters in some instances, which begs the question as to why they're employed by retailers in that capacity in the first place, if they're simply there to observe and look stern.

The fact that shoplifting has grown exponentially just points to a general malaise of shrugging it off as an unavoidable ill and something society simply has to put up with.

He had been told previously not to apprehend people himself.

As others have said we often don't get the whole story.

We do not know the full story.

He could have been on a final warning….anything.

Its fine to say “and then ignores warnings given by his manager to refrain from doing something, but does it anyway, can expect only one thing”. Wouldn’t anyone feel the tiniest bit angry when you're faced with this on a daily basis..Knowing you have to pay fir your shopping and so does everyone else who comes into the shop..I would be having murders on a daily basis if I worked there.l

My father worked for big London stores as a young man.
He had a friend who was a store detective who was assaulted once to the point of not being able to go back to work again.

In those days you had to wait till shoplifters had actually left the shop with the goods before they (or the police) could apprehend them.
I don't know if that is still true.

What we are seeing is the bitter side of self-service; people think they can just take if they need/want.
I can see a time when entry to shops will be monitored -high price goods tagged (already here) and exits controlled.

Many years ago I walked around a well known book shop with an expensive art book under my arm. I was trying to work out whether I could afford it by juggling bills until my student grant arrived. Eventually I decdided I could not afford it, put it back on the shelf and left the store with a cheap SF novel.

The manager came chasing after me and told me that he KNEW I had intended to steal the book and only put it back becaue I was aware I was being watched. There was a very robust exchange between us which ended in my reporting him to the CEO and threatening legal action. I got a grovelling letter back and a £10 voucher. £10 was quite a lot in the 1980s.

Two weeks later my grant cheque arrived and I again visited the store to purchase the book, handing in the voucher as part payment. I was hoping the manager would be around so I could give him the side eye. I have visited the shop many times since and never seen him.

Legally you are not allowed to challenge a customer until they step outside with the goods. Until they actually leave the building they have to be given the opportunity to pay for the goods or put them back on the shelf. If they leave the store without them then you cannot charge them with an offence.

Now the the shadow home secretary Chris Philp has called on Waitrose to reinstate Smith, accusing the supermarket of acting “disgracefully”. In a letter to Waitrose managing director posted on social media, Philp called for Smith to be paid a bonus “for his bravery and initiative”.

He said: “Staff safety must come first. But dismissing a long-serving employee in these circumstances sends entirely the wrong message. It penalises those who act, while offenders are left unchecked. Of course, the police and this failing government must do more to tackle shoplifting. But store staff and the public should be supported and encouraged to intervene as well. Otherwise, shoplifting will continue to surge unchecked.”

Obviously Philp has seized the opportunity to weigh in to score political points. The conservatives had 14 years to ry and tackle the shoplifting problem in addition. But most of all I don’t think its very sensible of him to encourage shop workers and the general public to intervene and tackle shop lifters- they may be carrying weapons and also may be under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. He also may be encouraging them to break the law themselves....

I remember back last year Tory police chief, Thames Valley, quite rightly faced a backlash over suggesting the public should stop shoplifters, very unwise advice and potentially dangerous The job of the police surely? and no the Tories didn't tackle shoplifting either.

I must say that I was shocked when I read what happened to the employee!! Disgraceful action by his superiors.

Allira

I've emailed Customer Services and hope other people are doing so too.

To read their blurb online about their ethos and treating employees as partners rather than just workers you'd think they were really caring.

Only towards shoplifters, it seems.

I was thinking of emailing a protest too. Waitrose are our local supermarket and I often get little Customer Service surveys about a shop I've just done and I thought I would answer it in terms of just how many shoplifters get away with it and how much extra do we shoppers pay as a result.

I was annoyed at the report, how can it be that the UK now shrugs at people shoplifting and they just get away with it!!

I wouldn't be emailing them!
We don't really know what has happened behind the scenes.

NotSpaghetti

I wouldn't be emailing them!
We don't really know what has happened behind the scenes.

Why not?

It will be interesting to see what Waitroses's reasons are, if they respond of course.

Because they can't talk about it can they!

🤔

As a customer I would like to know the exact reasons why a partner was sacked.

It would be illegal for Waitrose to disclose reasons a partner was sacked.

Boz

What we are seeing is the bitter side of self-service; people think they can just take if they need/want.
I can see a time when entry to shops will be monitored -high price goods tagged (already here) and exits controlled.

I don't remember any supermarkets until I was about 10 - it was all counter service, no self-service, I think that came from the States.
At the time I think some shopkeepers were worried people would just walk out with things, but we were more honest than they anticipated, back then.

Allira

NotSpaghetti

I wouldn't be emailing them!
We don't really know what has happened behind the scenes.

Why not?

It will be interesting to see what Waitroses's reasons are, if they respond of course.

Waitrose are not going to publically discuss or reveal the employment disciplinary history of Smith (or any other employee present or past).

butterandjam

Allira

NotSpaghetti

I wouldn't be emailing them!
We don't really know what has happened behind the scenes.

Why not?

It will be interesting to see what Waitroses's reasons are, if they respond of course.

Waitrose are not going to publically discuss or reveal the employment disciplinary history of Smith (or any other employee present or past).

Well, I do realise that.
I'm not completely stupid.

Nevertheless, as I said, as a customer I would like to know the exact reasons why a partner was sacked.

They will, if they reply, send me the official version which will be no different from what is communicated by their
Press Office to the media.

butterandjam

Allira

NotSpaghetti

I wouldn't be emailing them!
We don't really know what has happened behind the scenes.

Why not?

It will be interesting to see what Waitroses's reasons are, if they respond of course.

Waitrose are not going to publically discuss or reveal the employment disciplinary history of Smith (or any other employee present or past).

No, but Waitrose are fussy about their image and would be influenced by a good number of customers writing with concern about this case and the treatment of the employee.

I read that the chap had spent years watching people get away with shoplifting and it was a last straw moment. I get that and to start musing about his mental health is dismissive.

You're not a Waitrose store manager by any chance are you butterandjam ?