OT - Robberies

[Bob Eager]

Time locked safes aren't cheap, but just having a secure under-floor mounted safe where the keys aren't routinely on site is no great problem. And a few tins to drop down the hole.

[whisky-dave]

Why not encourage people not to use cash is more to the point.

[Onetap]

Where was this?

Only the site guards would have loaded (but not cocked) weapons, usually in a barracks. An "Army office" would would have no weapons or ammunition.

[The Natural Philosopher]

actually more than one trip a day to the bank is common (though not universal) practice for any retail operation.

To limit the amount of cash held on the premises.

And almost none is held overnight. Post offices which have to hold cash to DISPENSE to customers are a far more attractive target.

[Steve Firth]

It was an AFCO in a "difficult" area of the country. Presence of the redcap (armed) was an unlucky for the burglar coincidence.

Untrue. Sorry your experience seems somewhat limited. I can think of several Army offices that have weapons and ammunition. No I'm not going to tell you where they are for the usual obvious reasons.

[spuorgelgoog]

No, that's why when the manager goes home the 'cash only' notice appears :-)

Owain

[tim.....]

If the keys aren't on site staff can't cash up on a daily basis

and if you don't case up on a daily basis it's impossible to work out which of your staff it is who's on the fiddle (where one of them is)

tim

[Nightjar]

Any response has to be proportionate to the threat. Unless the robber was waving a gun about I doubt that throwing boiling oil in his face would be classed as proportionate.

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

You need to strike a balance between the cost and inconvenience of the security measures and what you are likely to lose in a robbery, given that the loss should be insured anyway. Assuming that you do have an under counter note safe at the till, who is going to empty it, when and how is their safety going to be ensured? Bringing in Securicor to do it is going to cost.

This thread started with a robbery while the garage staff were cashing up. In many cases, all that is needed to stop that is locking the door while it is going on.

They do make measures they think are necessary a requirement of offering cover. If they don't insist upon a particular measure, it is only because they don't think it will significantly reduce their risk. They are, after all, the experts are assessing risk.

Colin Bignell

[DerbyBorn]

Whether it was during cashing up or not - the money was only in a till.

Surely a device must be practical where the till operative can stash away notes into a cache of some sort and this will be recorded so that there is a trace on what each operator put into the cache. It could be as easy and putting it under a clip in the cash drawer as is the case now. It shouldn't be necessary to have the actual cash to hand when checking the takings.

I really begrudge violent scum bags getting money without working for it.

[Nightjar]

They are called under counter note safes and are fairly cheap. However, as I said, it is necessary to balance the cost and inconvenience against the risk of being robbed. Garages have some of the lowest rates of robbery in retail.

It is always necessary to have the actual cash to hand when check the takings. The whole point of cashing up is to check the cash against the record. The majority of crime in retail is carried out by staff.

Colin Bignell

[Onetap]

Bullshit. It's a job for the civilian police. If there's a threat to life, like a riot, they'll despatch armed police and evacuate the premises. If the Special Branch advise there's a threat, they'd just shut up shop. I can't see any circumstances in which live rounds and a weapon would be in the possession of any member of HM forces on the UK streets.

Clearly, with your double 0 credentials, you know better.

[Bob Eager]

Not true. We used to cash up at tbe end of each shift, passing a fixed float to the next shift. The rest went into the safe with a signed slip. Do that and you can cash up as much as you like without opening the safe.

[Bob Eager]

Absolutely. And that is what we did 40-odd years ago!

[Onetap]

Why would anyone try to rob an AFCO? Huge stash of Queen's shillings?

[Steve Firth]

They were after the office equipment, mostly the laptops. It was the WO1 who told me what had happened. I think they were just letting the redcap(s) use the office late at night before they went in to arrest someone or escort them to Colchester. I forget which. They had popped the kettle on when someone smashed the lavvy window and two would-be burglars crawled in.

[Jethro_uk]

You are, of course, quite correct.

However, a person of nervous disposition could have jumped when confronted, and be unable to prevent the hot oil they were ladling out from splashing in front of them.

I hope the new legal-aid lite lawyers know about automatism.

[SteveW]

Indeed it is supposed to be proportionate to the threat, but different people will feel very different levels of threat for the same event.

Also, it is only necessary to demostrate that your action was proportionate to the level of threat that you felt, not the actual level. For instance, you say the robber had his hand in his pocket and you thought he was holding a gun - how could you be proved to have acted disproportionately to the perceived threat?

SteveW

[Nightjar]

I think you will find it is the level of threat that the Court thinks a reasonable person would have felt in the same circumstances.

Colin Bignell

[tim.....]

Sorry I though that we were referring to the "cashier empties his twenties into the safe every time he gets 5 of them" type safe

tim