For sacking an employee of 17 years standing, for apprehending a serial shoplifter who was walking off with a bag full of Lindt chocolate eggs, £13 each. Not necessary basic food items. I know it's often company policy that employees are not supposed to confront shoplifters in any way, but he did so out of frustration. For his efforts he got the sack. Disgraceful! Waitrose were lucky to have him.
Shoplifting is now so prevalent, the losses incurred are no doubt passed on to the consumer.
Is this what we've become as a society? a prevailing laissez faire attitude to low level theft. Retail's attitude seemingly to throw their hands up in the air in a "what we can we do about it?" Worse still punish the person who is trying to uphold the law, sacked and asked to apologise.
I do like Waitrose as a store, I don't use them for most of my shopping but go there for some items, after this though I feel like withdrawing my custom.
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.
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.
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
We do not know the full story.
He could have been on a final warning….anything.
He had been told previously not to apprehend people himself.
As others have said we often don't get the whole story.
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.
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.
my post finished after a "sad case". apologise for not deleting the rest which Id copied and pasted from Guardian article 🥱
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 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.
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.
Sorry but any employee who disregards guidance
So it wasn't a company rule then?
Just "guidance" from his manager?
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"
GrannyGravy13
I heard on the BBC Radio 2 news that Waitrose have issued a statement on this incident saying that what is being reported isn’t the entire story
Interesting GrannyGravy13:. The plot thickens.
Perhaps Waitrose will be good enough to fill in the details of what actually lead to this man's dismissal.
Maybe some of us have been a bit hasty in judging their actions or maybe not.
I get rather fed up with selective reporting in some of our media
I did read it in the Guardian so presumably they are to be included in some of our media.
GrannyGravy13
I heard on the BBC Radio 2 news that Waitrose have issued a statement on this incident saying that what is being reported isn’t the entire story
What - not even in the Guardian 😲
GrannyGravy13
I heard on the BBC Radio 2 news that Waitrose have issued a statement on this incident saying that what is being reported isn’t the entire story
Exactly ‘the full facts have not been reported in the media, but we do not comment on individual cases’
I agree janeainsworth.
I get rather fed up with selective reporting in some of our media.
He may have been wrong but he does not deserve to be sacked.
Yes he did disregard company guidelines, out of frustration, I can imagine it must be hard to see the same faces walking out of a store loaded to the gunnels with high end goods. He also worked at the Clapham Junction branch and as reported recently, that area has been subject to flash mobs turning up in targeted shoplifting sprees.
M&S have sounded the alarm on retail crime and violence in its stores and have written to the Home Secretary and the London Mayor good luck with that to demand more resources, as they are of the opinion the matter is not being dealt with effectively.
The fact that there is an element of chancers in our society who shoplift regularly for non essentials, to barter for their own purposes, and the very new phenomenon of dine and dashers ordering just about everything than can cram down their greedy gullets in one sitting, points to another guise of out and out theft. Large companies such as M&S, Watirose etc. can probably take the hit, but for small entities it's positively ruinous and it makes for a horrible society where so little is being done about it.
This is from the Guardian:
‘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.’
And:
‘Smith said he was previously told not to approach shoplifters’
Sorry but any employee who disregards guidance that has been given in the interests of their own safety, and then ignores warnings given by his manager to refrain from doing something, but does it anyway, can expect only one thing.
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.
Me too! I said I hope they're inundated about this matter, it's so unfair. The person who did the sacking, is one person allowed do that instantly, without prior warnings, I thought not. Whoever they are, their judgement is appalling. The optics are beyond belief, if perhaps it had been bread and milk? but it never is though, so often the stuff being nicked is luxury end items............nobody goes malnourished if they don't have a Lindt chocolate egg. 
Think there should be a petition to get this man’s job back. He’s been a loyal worker and to be treat like this says more about the shop than the man who was loyal. What a disgraceful society we are in.
I heard on the BBC Radio 2 news that Waitrose have issued a statement on this incident saying that what is being reported isn’t the entire story
Whatever were Waitrose thinkin? This has truly backfired. I hope that employee gets a huge apology from them and is re- instated.
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.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
