Vigilante justice is apparently our birth right

Written By: - Date published: 9:26 am, February 26th, 2025 - 147 comments
Categories: law, law and "order", national, paul goldsmith, same old national - Tags:

Amongst the most dangerous, extreme and downright stupid policies the Government has come up with is the decision to be announced today to allow citizen’s arrests of shoplifters.

From Adam Pearse at the Herald:

Retailers and members of the public will soon have more ability to detain shoplifters and thieves under beefed-up citizen’s arrest powers, the Herald understands.

The Government is today expected to announce a range of measures aimed at curbing rising retail theft, which have been proposed by its ministerial advisory group formed in July to address retail crime.

The Herald understands Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee will detail their intention to amend the Crimes Act 1961 to make it easier for retail staff and members of the public to make citizen’s arrests – effectively detaining an offender until police attend.

Currently there is a citizen power of arrest if they discover someone committing an offence punishable by three or more years in jail or committing a Crimes Act offence between 9 pm and 6 am.

The decision to arrest can be a finely nuanced one. There is a great deal to consider, age, nature of offence, value, personal circumstances and various other matters.

And what will they do once the arrest has been completed? Tie the person up and keep them in the back of a van as Government advisor Sunny Kaushal prefers? It could take police hours to get around to dealing with what may be a low level offence.

Kaushal’s claims that crime is out of control jarrs with recent Government celebrations of a reduction in the crime rate.

The Herald article says there would be no age restriction and no minimum value for the goods.

In relation to the age restriction there are significant hoops that Police have to jump through before they can justify arresting a young person. Allowing security guards and civilians an absolute power to arrest makes no sense. They will be able to do something the police cannot.

And having no minimum value could mean that a homeless person shoplifting a pie could be arrested and detained and handed over to police. The institutional cost will dwarf the cost of the pie.

This is cheap headline grabbing lauranorda politics. Unfortunately we can expect norhing less.

147 comments on “Vigilante justice is apparently our birth right ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. gsays 1
    26 February 2025 at 10:04 am

    Detain shoplifters.

    Hah, neo-liberal as.

    Sub contract security to the public.

    I am more inclined to hold the door open for them if they are liberating goods from the supermarket. Fuck protecting their super profits.

    Emma Goldman, an anarchist in the States from early 20th century, maintained if people are hungry, you don't lobby your congressman, you take food and feed them.

    • weka 1.1
      26 February 2025 at 10:20 am

      Can we citizen arrest the neoliberals? 😉

      • Kay 1.1.1
        26 February 2025 at 10:38 am

        Ha ha I was just about to comment with something similar. I would love to participate in that, especially detaining certain politicians for enacting laws that cause deliberate harm to citizens (and no doubt contribute to the sharp rise in shoplifting).

        • weka 1.1.1.1
          26 February 2025 at 11:42 am

          I think we should arrest them and make them sit in committees that use consensus decision making 😂

      • gsays 1.1.2
        26 February 2025 at 12:52 pm

        "Can we citizen arrest the neoliberals? 😉"

        I suspect it will be like pot smokers in the UK in the '80's.

        'Too many to arrest.'

        • weka 1.1.2.1
          26 February 2025 at 1:02 pm

          start with the top end dealers, man.

          • Phillip ure 1.1.2.1.1
            26 February 2025 at 4:15 pm

            Why..?..

            Without the 'top end dealers'..

            ..there would be nothing for the punters to smoke…

            ..they are the heroes of the cannabis prohibition era…

            ..then and now…

            • weka 1.1.2.1.1.1
              26 February 2025 at 4:22 pm

              we were talking about neoliberalism and citizen arrests of neolibs for crimes against humanity. gsays said there were too many to arrest, just like with pot smokers. I said, arrest the organisers. It was a joke.

              But anyway, we could just legalise cannabis growing for home use and then the dealers become much less of an issue.

              • Phillip ure …
                26 February 2025 at 7:06 pm

                Yes… I know ..

                ..major weed dealers get a lot of bad press…

                ..thought I'd take the opportunity to throw good words the way of these forgotten/misunderstood heroes of the prohibition era ..

                Free the weed..!!

                • gsays …
                  26 February 2025 at 7:19 pm

                  I think it was High Times magazine that used to have a Roaring Lion honours mention for people that got arrested and made as big a pain in the arse as they could for the authorities.

  2. weka 2
    26 February 2025 at 10:19 am

    Fucking hell, this is immensely stupid even by the Luxon government standards.

    … to make it easier for retail staff and members of the public to make citizen’s arrests – effectively detaining an offender until police attend.

    Who has the capacity to do the actual detaining? Blokes of a certain nature. Who has the inclination to do that? A subset of those blokes. What's the overlap between that set of blokes and politicised authoritarians? There's National's mates, but imagine Destiny Churches thugs. Or some of the Freedom crowd. For some reason I think the Libertarians won't want to get their hands dirty.

    I'm really curious how retailers and security firms will view this law change.

    • Tiger Mountain 2.1
      26 February 2025 at 10:55 am

      Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young said this on RNZ this morning…

      “'Grave concerns'

      Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young was concerned about an escalation of violence and threats to staff.

      Frontline retail workers were often young and in their first job and "don't go to work to do law enforcement", she told Morning Report.

      "We have grave concerns about proposals to empower people to physically restrain or physically engage with people to stop them doing a crime, and the fact that could create more violence and people will get hurt.

      "We know that in the past where people have chased after alleged offenders there have been deaths."

      There may be an increase in weapons people bring as a result of knowing the could be challenged, she said.

      Young, a member of the ministerial advisory group, said chair Sunny Kaushal supported an expansion of citizens' arrest powers, and some smaller retailers also backed the move.

      However most Retail NZ members have said they wouldn't use the powers because they were concerned about staff safety, she said. They wanted to be able to approach someone who has allegedly offended, get goods back without any violent interaction, have them removed, and use tresspass laws and facial recognition so the person doesn't return.”

    • David 2.2
      26 February 2025 at 12:44 pm

      Well it may help with retail security guards, who are attempting to stop entitled white middle class teenage girls shoplifting. The law should also be amended to ensure that the kids parents are held to account as well.

      I'm somewhat perplexed by any objection to this, these people who are shoplifting, especially those who push a full shopping trolley out of the store, are just common criminals, taking advantage of the inability of store security to stop them.

      Quite frankly, it’s insulting to those of us who don’t steal, and who don’t treat the community in which we live with disrespect.

      • gsays 2.2.1
        26 February 2025 at 12:50 pm

        That's the difference between socialists/anarchists and tories.

        One lot care about people the others not so much.

        • David 2.2.1.1
          26 February 2025 at 5:22 pm

          Good luck finding a socialist country that will have any sympathy whatsoever to thieves and shoplifters. East Germany, considered its self as a socialist workers paradise. They certainly didn’t tolerate theft, nor did they tolerate slacking off by the entitled middle class individuals who thought they were above the rules.

          • gsays 2.2.1.1.1
            26 February 2025 at 7:33 pm

            As per usual you are only telling half the story, East Germany wouldn't have tolerated a foreign owned supermarket chain from profiting to the tune of $158.4 M and paid a chief executive over $12M a year.

            • David 2.2.1.1.1.1
              26 February 2025 at 9:09 pm

              True, East Germanys supermarkets were state owned, and provided everything all modest hardworking socialists could wish for. However they certainly wouldn’t have tolerated theft or shoplifting, just like they didn’t tolerate any slackers who felt entitled to an easy lifestyle.

              • weka …
                26 February 2025 at 9:29 pm

                sounds like you have an appreciation for authoritarians across the spectrum

                • David …
                  26 February 2025 at 10:18 pm

                  Authoritarians tend to be bullies, like all bullies, they dislike those who stand up to other bullies. So no I don’t particularly like authoritarians on any side of the spectrum. Holding those who shoplift to account, shouldn’t be considered authoritarian. Just like holding those who commit domestic violence should be held to account, irrespective of their cultural background.

                  • weka …
                    26 February 2025 at 10:49 pm

                    it's not your desire to hold shoplifters to account that marks you as an authoritarian, it's that you don't care if the shoplifter's arm gets broken in the process and believe that citizens should be able to use force to make arrests despite not being trained to do so.

                    • David …
                      27 February 2025 at 10:24 am

                      Weka, it’s highly unlikely that a young teenager will get their arm broken in the circumstances you described. They are more likely to be in the back seat of another teenagers car being driven recklessly.

                      Citizens are already able to use force to protect themselves, others and their property. Police have previously charged people who have used self defence, and gone to trial, jury’s have consistently found them not guilty.

                      However I don’t believe that it is authoritarian behaviour to give the bullies in our society a swift kick in the backside. The teenage girls who are shoplifting, are generally little shits who bully their classmates and cause other havoc, like their teenage boy counterparts.

                      My sympathies lie with the rest of us who have had to put up with bullies

                    • Incognito []
                      27 February 2025 at 1:05 pm

                      They are more likely to be in the back seat of another teenagers car being driven recklessly.

                      That’s a straw man argument because their harm would be self-inflicted. If they were putting others/the public at risk they must be pulled over by authorised [and trained] officers of the law. You keep dodging the point.

                      Citizens are already able to use force to protect themselves, others and their property.

                      Another straw man. Self-defence is an entirely different category and you keep omitting “reasonable force”.

                      However I don’t believe that it is authoritarian behaviour to give the bullies in our society a swift kick in the backside.

                      This is the responsibility and duty of authorities and the justice system, not of vigilantes.

                      Your peculiar aversion with teenage girls of certain ethnicity and social class has been noted, thank you.

                      My sympathies lie with the rest of us who have had to put up with bullies

                      Your sympathy towards us here on TS is gracefully accepted, thank you.

        • Belladonna 2.2.1.2
          27 February 2025 at 11:42 am

          If you think that anarchists care about people at all (other than themselves) – you must have a very different definition of the term than the one which is commonly used.

          • gsays 2.2.1.2.1
            27 February 2025 at 12:19 pm

            Definitely do.

            Quite the opposite of the Vivyan character from the Young Ones.

            I would argue they care more than yr dyed in the wool democrat. By definition 49% can be in misery if 51% are happy.

            Noam Chomsky's writings were my gateway and Emma Goldman and her contemporaries solidified it for me.

            https://www.thoughtco.com/emma-goldman-quotes-3529233

            "The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every human being to liberty and well-being."

            "Women need not always keep their mouths shut and their wombs open.

            There is no hope even that woman, with her right to vote, will ever purify politics."

            • Belladonna 2.2.1.2.1.1
              27 February 2025 at 12:32 pm

              Anarchism, by definition, opposes all State control (as being inherently oppressive). So no, state education, no police (vigilante justice), no protection of those unable to protect themselves, no restrictions on corporations (again, except for vigilante justice).

              This is not a philosophy for people who care about others.

              • gsays …
                27 February 2025 at 3:35 pm

                Those convinced against their will, hold their own opinions still.

                I can only urge you to read a little more about anarchists/anarchism from the likes of Chomsky and Goldman.

                • Belladonna …
                  28 February 2025 at 12:24 pm

                  So, an anarchist can invade your home, assault you, steal from you, refuse to contribute to education or social protection for those unable to work – and then claim that you have no redress against them.

                  I don't have any issue with people holding their own opinions even if convinced against their will. Many people disagree about how 'their' taxes are used – but that's no excuse for choosing not to pay them.

                  Anarchists however, claim that any imposition on them is oppressive. Indeed the existence of the 'State' is oppressive. So can choose not to abide by anything other than their own will. This is not a form of society which can operate at all (and, indeed, there is no history of an anarchist society lasting more than a very brief period – one marked by revolutionary violence, I might note)

                  But if you don't choose to contribute to society, if you act only for your own benefit – then you demonstrably don't care about others. You may care about your own family or group members – altruistically, you (the individual) may care about other people that you know – but there's no requirement in the anarchist philosophy, even for that. And, many, many, people demonstrably don't care about anyone but themselves. The rest of us would like to be protected from them.

                  • weka …
                    28 February 2025 at 12:51 pm

                    I’d really like to know where you are getting your ideas about anarchism from.

                    • Belladonna …
                      28 February 2025 at 1:05 pm

                      History. Especially early 20th century history.
                      I'm not aware of any more recent examples of anarchist 'states'

                      Nor do any of the more recent writers (and, yes, I have read Chomsky) address how to handle people who don’t want to abide by societal norms (or even how the norms are agreed); or how to protect others.
                      They seem to believe that the entire world operates at the highest of self-sacrificing moral principles at all times. A somewhat questionable contact with reality.

                    • weka []
                      28 February 2025 at 1:16 pm

                      isn’t anarchist state an oxymoron? What states were you thinking of?

                    • Belladonna …
                      28 February 2025 at 1:23 pm

                      Well, yes anarchist 'state' is an oxymoron – which is why it was in ' '

                      Substitute 'group'.

                      Is there *any* example of an anarchist group overthrowing a State, and resulting in a good outcome for the citizens? The anarchist-driven revolutions in Spain and Russia had appalling outcomes (and resulted in highly oppressive new regiemes).

                      While one can't blame the anarchists directly for Stalin (I'm sure they – or the ones surviving his takeover – were horrified by him). It seems evident that their philosophy results in a void, which is rapidly filled by some other form of state control (often a highly repressive one).

              • gsays …
                27 February 2025 at 6:22 pm

                and…

                you imply the state cares.

                Abuse in care enquiry. Decades of the Solicitors/Attorneys General, and various Ministers of the Crown spending millions denying justice to those tortured.

                I'll take Emma Goldman's view on how society should be run anyday over the current shit show.

                • Belladonna …
                  28 February 2025 at 12:43 pm

                  Dear me, so because the State isn't perfect, it's better that there is no State?

                  I think that you'll find that the alternative of no State results in considerably worse outcomes. Failed States result in a vast increase in criminal violence – no one (apart from the local warlords, imposing their authoritarian control over the population) is better off.

                  https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/statefailureandstateweaknessinatimeofterror_chapter.pdf

                  If your argument is that people, given the opportunity to engage in free choice, can choose a zero government option, with no levels of violence, control or intimidation – I invite you to provide an example. We've had many historical examples of States failing and of anarchist revolutions – not one has been 'better' for the ordinary people than some level of State control.

              • weka …
                27 February 2025 at 6:37 pm

                by that kind of argument, no-one cares about anyone. I'm not a fan of anarchism because it doesn't seem to have a coherent plan, but it's not valid to say anarchists as a set of political philosophies don't care about people.

                • gsays …
                  27 February 2025 at 6:49 pm

                  When you prefer not to be governed, it is in your best interests that you share with those without.

                  Where there is law, there is no love, where there is love, there is no law.

                  • weka …
                    27 February 2025 at 7:07 pm

                    what do you do about the people that want to be governed though?

                    • gsays …
                      27 February 2025 at 10:51 pm

                      Let them be.

                    • weka []
                      28 February 2025 at 10:12 am

                      sweet. So you’re ok with them organising a government. What happens if they want you to be governed by that government?

                    • gsays []
                      28 February 2025 at 12:31 pm

                      In a lot of ways that is playing out now with the likes of the vaccine mandate protests and these reported sovereign citizens not acknowledging the courts power.

                      They aren't good examples however, as they seem more to be dropkicks looking to dodge responsibility than legitimate free-man-on-the-land devotees. Where operating at a higher level and driven by love is more typical.

                      Pragmatism plays a big part in these beliefs.

                      Choose your battles and win them. Also, as Jesus, says go quietly amongst your people.

                      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/sovereign-citizens-challenge-nz-courts-with-fringe-legal-claims/W44LYNUW35A57BB5X6BUGPHE5A/

                      The reporting is a little lazy and one-sided akin to RNZ article about the Inflexion point conference.

                    • weka []
                      28 February 2025 at 12:48 pm

                      this is like most conversations I have with Anarchists. When it comes down to it, anarchism only works if there is buy in from everyone, or perhaps most people. There is no plan within the philosophy on how to run society in real terms. I like a lot of the ideas in anarchism, but it doesn’t work on the larger scale for where we are now. It’s probably worth developing community or sub community using anarchistic principles, because when civ collapses we will need groups of people who already know how to function without government. However I would feel more confident with that if anarchists stepped up to the hard questions.

                    • gsays []
                      28 February 2025 at 2:06 pm

                      I know a couple of groups of people, one of them family linked who are basically anarchist.

                      They wouldn't describe themselves as that, they're just independent minded, get on, look out for each other, school working bees, help restore the local church that sort of thing.

                    • weka []
                      28 February 2025 at 2:10 pm

                      what makes them anarchists rather than just community minded? My test is whether they are supporting disabled people and what that support looks like. I have more on the ground experience with small L libertarians, and ime they’re actually not that great at looking out for people beyond their friendship circles of like minded people. That’s not sufficient for functioning community. There needs to be a socialist ethic of some kind. I guess in a sense this is what Belladonna was pointing to, the philosophy lacks that kind of commitment to community wellbeing.

                    • gsays …
                      1 March 2025 at 11:40 am

                      @weka below. Sorry about radio silence my afternnon then evening got away from me.

                      "what makes them anarchists rather than just community minded?"

                      Well, they can be both, this ain't binary.

                      As to yr observation about including the disabled I can only offer that I have seen them provide shelter, support, food and love to those who have had mental, emotional and psychological damage. I haven't seen them shun or exclude the disabled.

                      Like a lot of political philosophies, there is a mixed bag involved. This capitalist democracy favours the 51% that are needed to keep it ticking over, to the detriment of a lot of people. The % that must be unemployed to keep the economy at the favoured % of inflation.

                      To move to a doughnut or solid state or sharing economic model, centrists, tories even most self identifying 'lefties' aren't going to take you there – there is too much for them to lose.

                      Support is going to come from the fringes.

                  • Belladonna …
                    28 February 2025 at 12:36 pm

                    So, how does this work for people who are demonstrably violent criminal predators – who have no desire to be anything else. There's not a lot of 'love' going on (apart from love of self).

                    Think of Phillip John Smith for example. An abusive pedophile, who murdered the father of one of his victims. If you are trying to argue that, if his actions were not illegal (no law), he wouldn't have carried them out – I think that there is zero evidence of this. He very clearly sees nothing wrong with the satisfaction of his desires – regardless of their impact on others..

                    In an anarchist society, with no social controls, he would almost certainly have been the subject of vigilante justice (and tortured before execution). Is that the outcome you'd advocate? Summary justice from whoever feels outraged by the behaviour of the individual.

                    • gsays …
                      1 March 2025 at 11:49 am

                      Yr observation about rural/urban food choices holds true in other aspects of life too.
                      There is a world of difference between illegal and unlawful.
                      Smith clearly, by anyone’s reckoning, was being unlawful. You don’t need statutes, bylaws or any other man made construct to make that clear.

                      I know little about him but I'm assuming Smith was a city dweller. I would suggest that life is a lot harder for someone living rurally if you are shunned by the community.

                  • Belladonna …
                    28 February 2025 at 12:50 pm

                    In a lot of ways that is playing out now with the likes of the vaccine mandate protests and these reported sovereign citizens not acknowledging the courts power.

                    However, those people arguing they are sovereign citizens (and therefore the courts have no power over them) – aren't also claiming that they have no rights to use the health system or social welfare system (for example). Or, for that matter, the justice system (they'd be the first to complain if vigilante 'justice' was exercised against them.

                    They're claiming that they can pick and choose from the benefits of society. Why should the rest of us allow them to?

                    • gsays …
                      1 March 2025 at 11:31 am

                      Sorry about radio silence my afternnon then evening got away from me.
                      When I mentioned these folks there was a disclaimer that they weren't great examples. I am not able to defend most of their actions.

                      Plus as I say, I don't think the reportage is balanced or a fair reflection of their positions.

                      Freeman-on-the-land devotees that I am aware of wouldn't end up 'in' or 'before' a court. They would hold their position outside of the court/judges jurisdiction.

                      Why shouldn't they use a health system? They have directly or indirectly funded the system through taxes and charges.

                      "Why should the rest of us allow them to?"

                      If they are doing you no harm let them be.

                • Belladonna …
                  28 February 2025 at 12:28 pm

                  There is no space in the anarchist philosophy or organization for caring about others. The individual is primary. An individual may choose to care about others – but there is no requirement to do so.
                  Under a State system, people are protected against those who simply don't care. Even if you don't agree with social-welfare subsidies for those unable to work, you don't get an option to not pay for them through your taxes.

                  Yes, that protection may not be effective all the time. However, it's considerably better than no protection at all. There is a reason that the only examples we have of anarchist states are incredibly violent.

                  • weka …
                    28 February 2025 at 12:50 pm

                    There is no space in the anarchist philosophy or organization for caring about others. The individual is primary. An individual may choose to care about others – but there is no requirement to do so.

                    sorry this is just not correct.

                    Anarchist schools of thought have been generally grouped into two main historical traditions, social anarchism and individualist anarchism, owing to their different origins, values and evolution.[71]

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Schools_of_thought

                    • Belladonna …
                      28 February 2025 at 12:57 pm

                      I understand the difference. But I don't believe it.
                      "Positive liberty" – equality and social ownership – has to be enforced in some way (otherwise, how do they deal with the people who want to impose control on others). Once you have any form of group control, you no longer have anarchy (just some form of low-control State – whether at the small-group level, or larger)

                      Note that small groupings, outside of broader State control, have been historically very controlling and hierarchical – with all of the potential social abuse which comes from that.

                    • weka []
                      28 February 2025 at 1:15 pm

                      well, yes. I have a lot of problems with anarchism because of this (and for some in the past, the inability to directly work through those issues).But your claim was that anarchists a priori can’t care about others. Having a terminal philosophy doesn’t mean that individuals can’t care about others (hence my point earlier about your argument would basically say that everyone is selfish), and there is plenty of evidence from actual anarchists that they do care about others, in themselves and in their political philosophy.

                      I don’t think any kind of governance is the state, and I don’t believe anarchists do either.

                    • Belladonna …
                      28 February 2025 at 1:31 pm

                      I didn't say that individual anarchists don't care, I said there is no space in the anarchist philosophy for this. Individuals can choose to care. No one can be 'forced' to take any action for the benefit of others. How do anarchists reconcile this difference? They don't.

                      Individual anarchists – and more importantly, those who write about the political philosophy of anarchism – may indeed care about others. But there are plenty of individuals who demonstrably don't.

                    • weka []
                      28 February 2025 at 2:07 pm

                      In fact, you originally said,

                      If you think that anarchists care about people at all (other than themselves) – you must have a very different definition of the term than the one which is commonly used.

                      I definitely took that to mean people not the political philosophy, which was my main objection to your argument.

                      Inability to reconcile the philosophy with reality is indeed a big hole in its functionality, but I’d say that about neoliberalism as well. Is there any political philosophy that doesn’t suffer from this?

                      As I said to gsays, I see value in the philosophy and people attempting to practice it, because if we don’t transition and civ collapses, we will need people already experienced in healthy functioning without governance. However I’ve talked to some pretty dogmatic anarchists, and I would expect that dogmatism to result in violence in a civ collapse scenario, so I don’t see it as a viable system in reality. Systems based on active care of others, collectivism, that have ways of dealing with the sociopaths and powermongers seems more viable to me. I’m not inherently opposed to heirarchies, I just think we often do them badly atm

                    • Belladonna …
                      28 February 2025 at 1:38 pm

                      I don’t think any kind of governance is the state, and I don’t believe anarchists do either.

                      Quoting from the Wikipedia article you linked.

                      Objection to the state and its institutions is a sine qua non of anarchism. Anarchists consider the state as a tool of domination and believe it to be illegitimate regardless of its political tendencies. Instead of people being able to control the aspects of their life, major decisions are taken by a small elite. Authority ultimately rests solely on power, regardless of whether that power is open or transparent, as it still has the ability to coerce people. Another anarchist argument against states is that the people constituting a government, even the most altruistic among officials, will unavoidably seek to gain more power, leading to corruption. Anarchists consider the idea that the state is the collective will of the people to be an unachievable fiction due to the fact that the ruling class is distinct from the rest of society.

                      It seems clear that any form of government which holds coercive power over individuals is defined as 'The State' in the anarchist philosophy. Anyone who thinks that smaller groups can never be coercive, authoritarian and elitist – is invited to examine historical examples.

      • weka 2.2.2
        26 February 2025 at 1:06 pm

        play out some scenarios for me. A white middle class teenage girl puts some make up in her bag in a supermarket. What happens next? Who does the citizens arrest? How do they do it? How do they hold the girl until the police arrive? What happens if the girl gets her arm broken in the assault? Or she's brown and the citizen calls her a thieving nigger? Or another customer in the aisle gets hurt by mistake? Tell us how. you see it working.

        • David 2.2.2.1
          26 February 2025 at 3:04 pm

          Firstly larger stores, supermarkets, farmers, the warehouse etc have security guards, so this is not an issue. Putting items in your handbag and not in a shopping cart or basket, indicates that the person is likely to be stealing. If you actually do this, I would suggest that you shouldn’t, you may “forget”to pay for the item and inadvertently steal from the shop.

          As for abuse, it’s far more likely that it’s the person who is stealing that will be violent and abusive, unlikely to be the shop employees (who by the way are often young people and who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity). Unfortunately any number of “very nice” middle class white people get very indignant when confronted by “low class oiks” who work in customer facing positions.

          This has been quite a serious issue for many years, it’s not uncommon for the parents to threaten shop employees when their kids get caught shoplifting.

          • weka 2.2.2.1.1
            26 February 2025 at 3:40 pm

            Firstly larger stores, supermarkets, farmers, the warehouse etc have security guards, so this is not an issue.

            Do you mean the law will only apply to smaller stores? How will citizens know which stores they are allowed to arrest people in?

            Putting items in your handbag and not in a shopping cart or basket, indicates that the person is likely to be stealing. If you actually do this, I would suggest that you shouldn’t, you may “forget”to pay for the item and inadvertently steal from the shop.

            No shit. You still haven't given any scenarios of how citizen arrests might play out.

            As for abuse, it’s far more likely that it’s the person who is stealing that will be violent and abusive, unlikely to be the shop employees (who by the way are often young people and who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity). Unfortunately any number of “very nice” middle class white people get very indignant when confronted by “low class oiks” who work in customer facing positions.

            So? The issue is about writing legislation that allows a NZ citizen to assault another NZ citizen and whether this puts others at risk. Putting aside the violence of shoplifters (because we already have legislation that deals with this), please give us some scenarios of how you see citizen arrests happening in real life.

            • I Feel Love 2.2.2.1.1.1
              26 February 2025 at 3:58 pm

              Lawyers are gonna be having a field day with all this, so many variables. I was wondering what would happen if I saw someone use excessive force on a shop lifter then I intervened to stop the excessive force, would that be allowable under the new law? What if it was someone using their weight to sit on someone & the person on the ground was clearly being smothered like George Floyd for eg? What then?

              In my job we often have to restrain (mental health worker) & we get so much training because anything can go wrong. It's a very serious thing to do is to touch someone, anyone.

              • weka …
                26 February 2025 at 4:07 pm

                exactly this. So many things could go wrong. We will see if Nat actually bring legislation to the table how it is worded, but their PR on this so far is bonkers.

            • David 2.2.2.1.1.2
              26 February 2025 at 5:15 pm

              Most citizens have no intention of stealing, so it’s only an issue to the habitual thieves, and the entitled middle class white teenagers and their parents. Neither of which bothers me, and I guess if excessive force is used, good luck finding a jury that will convict the store owner.

              My local dairy has been robbed several times, and has had teenagers shoplifting/stealing from them. Mr Patel should be able to deal to them in whatever manner he sees fit, in order to protect himself, his family and his business. Just like I am able to do with an abusive dinner party guest in my home.

              So do I care that some entitled teenager gets a broken arm while being restrained by store security, or the shop owner because they are stealing? No absolutely not one bit, too bad. They should be named and shamed publicly along with their parents.

              • I Feel Love …
                26 February 2025 at 5:51 pm

                "Most citizens have no intention of stealing" – exactly, so why the heavy handed law that affects all our civil liberties then?

                • David …
                  26 February 2025 at 6:08 pm

                  Is it really heavy handed to allow store security and shop owners to take action to prevent theft? Criminals affect our civil liberties as well, probably way more than we think. At the moment employees just doing their jobs, can face disciplinary action if they defend themselves or a customer from another abusive customer, this also affects our civil liberties.

                  • I Feel Love …
                    26 February 2025 at 6:36 pm

                    We have police & courts to do that very job. It does affect mine & your civil liberties David, all someone needs to do is accuse us of shoplifting (or breaking any law? This has yet to be tested) & we can be held & restrained against our will until the police turn up & they will decide to charge us or not.

                    "At the moment employees just doing their jobs, can face disciplinary action if they defend themselves or a customer from another abusive customer," where do you get this crap? Abusive customers come with the job unforturnately, it's not against the law. It's not even against the law to swear at a cop. & please, this will affect employees aversely as the NZ Retail Assoc has pointed out, it's anti-worker & anti-health & safety but please keep pretending it's for the employees benefit.

                    • David …
                      26 February 2025 at 8:47 pm

                      A shop owner/employee should be allowed to prevent someone from stealing from a retail store, however it is discouraged as the items being stolen are not the property of the employee as well as the possibility of the employee being hurt. Employees should have protection against prosecution in these circumstances.

                      In some retail businesses an employee can face internal disciplinary action, should they become involved in an altercation with an abusive customer, unless they have gone through a de-escalation process and have no other option. Sounds good in practice, but very hard to do in real life.

                      As you say “abusive customer come with the job”. That’s the same as “bullying workmates come with the job”. Both are on the way out, if you think it’s acceptable to abuse those who work in customer service, or to abuse your workmates, you are going to be in for a surprise. The level of abuse, directed at customer service staff, is nothing less than appalling. The worst abuse comes from people who certainly should know better.

                      As you want to know where “I get that crap”, the business I work for now has extensive customer abuse procedures, any and all abuse is now reported and when found to be unacceptable it will be recorded against the customers profile and a warning letters will be sent to the customer. Too many warnings, or more extreme abuse will result in the customer being exited from the business. We don’t make a distinction between low class oiks or nice white middle class professionals. In fact the latter is most likely to be the offender.

                    • Descendant Of Smith …
                      26 February 2025 at 11:34 pm

                      in the 80's we used to fight with customers and wrestle them to the ground until the police came. I could do that in my rugby playing early 20's days. No problem at all.

                      If we did that today we would get sacked. No question. Our employers guidelines are to retreat and leave them to it.

                      The world has changed.

                  • Incognito …
                    26 February 2025 at 6:43 pm

                    Self-defence is not a crime, as long as reasonable force is used. Same applies to lawful arrests.

                    Stop inventing BS arguments.

                  • weka …
                    26 February 2025 at 7:04 pm

                    Is it really heavy handed to allow store security and shop owners to take action to prevent theft?

                    Shops and store security can already take action to prevent theft. The proposed law is to allow all citizens to do so.

                    You still haven't given us any scenarios.

                    • David …
                      26 February 2025 at 8:59 pm

                      Smaller shops without security guards, such as your local dairy or clothing store. Employees are advised that they shouldn’t, or must not, stop someone who is shoplifting from leaving the store. Business owners/employees should be allowed to stop someone who is stealing, as long as it is safe to do so.

                    • weka []
                      26 February 2025 at 9:05 pm

                      if business owners can’t stop shop lifters, how do they manager to currently stop shop lifters? (which they do).

                      By scenarios, I mean describe a scene in a dairy and how someone might do a citizen’s arrest of a shop lifter. Not the employee, but Joe Bloggs, because that’s what the propose legislation would do, allow anyone to do a citizen’s arrest.

              • Incognito …
                27 February 2025 at 9:14 am

                So do I care that some entitled teenager gets a broken arm while being restrained by store security, or the shop owner because they are stealing? No absolutely not one bit, too bad. They should be named and shamed publicly along with their parents.

                This is your typical vigilante thinking: dole out a penalty, inflict a bit of pain, treat them and their friends and family as trash, because they deserve it, and all whilst arresting an alleged offender.

          • I Feel Love 2.2.2.1.2
            26 February 2025 at 6:37 pm

            Are the parents who threaten shop employees when their kids get caught shoplifting in the room with you now? Makes we wonder what paranoid dystopian world some people live in.

        • Descendant Of Smith 2.2.2.2
          26 February 2025 at 11:12 pm

          I know one horrible shop owner who would accuse young pretty girls – often schoolgirls – of shoplifting just to watch them get flustered and panicky and cry.

          He would have loved to have been able to citizen arrest them and put his grubby hands on them.

          Thankfully he's out of business now but he operated like that for over 30 years. And yeah I did rescue a couple of young girl's from his bullshit and called him out on it.

          Another acquaintance with military background who did security at the local supermarket had been molesting his neighbour's daughter for years. He would love to be able to put his hands on young women while doing citizen's arrests as well. One a week would keep him going til next week. He is in jail now.

          They have not really thought this through in the slightest.

          • weka 2.2.2.2.1
            26 February 2025 at 11:21 pm

            I was thinking about the potential for sexual assault too. Or harassing people of other ethnicities.

            It seems likely they didn't think it through, but also likely that they just don't care that much.

      • tc 2.2.3
        26 February 2025 at 1:22 pm

        IMO that's exactly who it's for as there sure are enough of them.

        Goldsmith doubling down on their lack of police officers with this shite idea.

        • David 2.2.3.1
          26 February 2025 at 5:27 pm

          An issue we have with increasing the police numbers is the availability of suitable candidates. The police could lower their standards, however that would cause other issues.

          • bwaghorn 2.2.3.1.2
            26 February 2025 at 6:28 pm

            It'd be hard to get lower than spotty teenage store workers and untrained security guards, I generally try treat people as be honest but I'm starting to thing you're just a nat troll/fan boy.

            • Incognito 2.2.3.1.2.1
              26 February 2025 at 6:52 pm

              Always good when people show their true colours – the emotional labour becomes much more manageable that way.

            • weka 2.2.3.1.2.2
              26 February 2025 at 7:06 pm

              hard core nat fan boy running RW hard man talking points. It's getting boring.

              • David …
                26 February 2025 at 10:07 pm

                Weka, I’m not sure if I should take that as a compliment or not. I’d happily step in to assist someone to prevent theft from their business. Just like I would help a neighbour. If that makes me a RW nat hard man, so be it. Much rather that, than support those who crap on their own.

                • Incognito …
                  27 February 2025 at 8:24 am

                  The operative word is “happily”. Enough said.

                • Descendant Of Smith …
                  27 February 2025 at 8:51 am

                  Every one would do it until they are in the position of having to do it.

                  Are you so sure you would do it – hidden knife, visible hammer, faster young reflexes, group of them……….

                  I've seem quite a few big tough people back out when it is actually time to do so. Sometimes reality hits and that fight/flight gets better served by flight. Also human pyschology shows that the more people there are around the less likely someone is to step in.

                  A friend does martial arts training – he's is clear with his students – martial arts won't save you if there is a knife. There's quite a good video somewhere on the internet showing martial arts students using a felt pen as a knife marking the person trying to use martial arts as a defense. Marker pen won easily.

                  Still there is a whole US fantasy porn genre about citizen arresting young girls, taking them out the back and having sex with them in order to get the police not called. I have no doubt their are men just drooling over the possibilities. (I'd forgotten about that when I posted about the two abusive people earlier. The security guard guy used to watch and talk about this stuff after his wife left him. Was really creepy knowing he was a security guard.)

            • David 2.2.3.1.2.3
              26 February 2025 at 9:20 pm

              I’d prefer the company of a low class “spotty faced” teenager, or a common security guard, than some white, lower-middle class idiot, who has been educated & and promoted beyond their incompetence.

              I can guarantee that the former are probably much more competent than the latter.

              • Incognito …
                26 February 2025 at 9:36 pm

                I can guarantee […] are probably […]

                I reckon that’s nonsensical.

                • David …
                  26 February 2025 at 10:29 pm

                  I’m always surprised, but I shouldn’t be, when I experience left wing middle class people treating those who they consider beneath them badly.

              • bwaghorn …
                27 February 2025 at 6:25 am

                So you have no problem with the teen or the guard getting a hammer to the head or a knife to the ribs as opposed to there being enough police to round up your rich white thief's,

      • bwaghorn 2.2.4
        26 February 2025 at 3:38 pm

        Gow about get their photo then give it to the cops ,

        • weka 2.2.4.1
          26 February 2025 at 3:41 pm

          don't need the law to change to do that.

          • Visubversa 2.2.4.1.1
            26 February 2025 at 4:11 pm

            That happens already. The minute you step into the store you are on camera. Those who walk out with laden trolleys without paying are recorded every step of the way. The footage can be sent to the Police and most of the thieves are already known to them.

            I remember a couple of years ago in a visit to the UK where several stores we went into had more security guards at the door than they did checkout operators as most of the stores had self checkouts.

          • bwaghorn 2.2.4.1.2
            26 February 2025 at 6:29 pm

            It was a reply to talk back Dave.

  3. Tiger Mountain 3
    26 February 2025 at 10:35 am

    Supermarket duopoly price gouges, unemployment and homelessness rise, NGOs like food banks defunded…some shoplift out of desperation…

    Natzo answer–a punitive clampdown on lifters and attack on civil rights via extending powers of detention to non sworn people. Bar capital punishment, incarceration is the highest sanction the state can take against a citizen and should not be undertaken lightly or without standards and accountability.

    A better answer–feed the kids!–properly, regulate firmly on the duopoly, introduce competition, drop benefit sanctions, implement the full 2019 WEAG Report, move to a higher wage economy.

    If a fat gutted security guard, or tory do gooder tries to take someone on in a ratty Pak’n’Save they will not get a good reaction from a number of us.

    • Kay 3.1
      26 February 2025 at 10:41 am

      But we all know that supermarket profits are way more important than starving citizens.

    • alwyn 3.2
      26 February 2025 at 11:59 am

      Do you want competition?

      You are free to start a business selling groceries in New Zealand. Nobody is going to stop you from doing so. providing you pay the appropriate fees to the local permit issuing groups.

      Go ahead. Do it, I'll bet that if you were to try you would find out just how hard it is and you would be shocked by the amount of "shrinkage" that occurs.

      • Tiger Mountain 3.2.1
        26 February 2025 at 12:09 pm

        Those are tired old tropes…small suppliers are bullied and stood over, competitors blocked by all means available…shrinkage? how about supplying unsold food before it is totally off to community groups.

        https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/06/19/proceedings-filed-against-supermarket-giant-over-land-covenants/

        • alwyn 3.2.1.1
          26 February 2025 at 12:53 pm

          Shrinkage is a great deal more than spoiled food.

          There is an awful lot of shoplifting that goes on. That is also part of the "shrinkage" a store suffers.

        • Mac1 3.2.1.2
          26 February 2025 at 6:23 pm

          The French have done this since 2016.

          https://recycle.ab.ca/newsletterarticle/france-becomes-first-country-to-ban-supermarket-food-waste/

          A local supermarket here in my town gives away its surplus bread to the local food kitchen for it to give away.

          A start.

          • Mac1 3.2.1.2.1
            26 February 2025 at 6:39 pm

            Thinking this over, and aiming this at those who profess to follow Old Testament law, here is what Moses demanded of his society to care for its poor.

            "Through a divine law, Moses instructs his people care for the poor, the oppressed, the landless, and the alien are to be taken care of by the rich by not gleaning the second time. Not only that the law also requires that the owners should deliberately leave enough grains so that the poor are benefited.

            “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God. Lev. 19: 910

            13 “‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor.

            “‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight. Lev. 19: 13

            “19 When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow. 21 When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do” – Deut. 24: 19–22

            We all were once 'slaves'. The history of immigration into Aotearoa is the story of emigrating away from poverty, oppression, starvation, hard times. Surely true of my ancestors.

            The same for America. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me."

            Would that we had learned our history, and its lessons to us……..

      • Mike the Lefty 3.2.2
        26 February 2025 at 12:32 pm

        Even if an overseas supermarket chain is enticed to set up a network of stores in NZ I don't think it will significantly drop prices in the long term. There will be a drop in prices initially as they all scramble to get the best market position but the prices will slowly rise again and they will all end up much the same. This happened with petrol prices when Challenge opened up, petrol prices initially fell by around 20 cents a litre but steadily rose again.

        This is because any overseas chain will be just like Foodstuffs and Progressive, the wants of the shareholders will be the first concern and shareholders do not tolerate less than the best profit margins that can be obtained. That will never change and so if we have a new supermarket entrant that is going to make a real difference, it will have to be run differently, perhaps more like the old co-op system?

        Of course the government could do it but we know that will never ever happen with the CoC and probably not under Labour either.

        • alwyn 3.2.2.1
          26 February 2025 at 1:01 pm

          "Even if an overseas supermarket chain" and "the old co-op system"

          Why do you want to get an overseas chain to come here? Do it yourself. That is how Foodstuffs got started.

          Foodstuffs is a co-op by the way.

      • Descendant Of Smith 3.2.3
        28 February 2025 at 7:33 am

        Competition is what has got us here. Competition ultimately leads to monopolisation as the big companies buy up the little ones.

        What is needed is better regulation to allow others to operate eg make it illegal to have contracts that means unwanted surplus must be buried/bulldozed so growers can sell to someone else, make it illegal to bank land competitors could build on, make it illegal for supermarket advertising to come out of the growers share, etc

        Most towns these days have the same franchises and the same fake competition shops all looking the same.

  4. thinker 4
    26 February 2025 at 11:26 am

    https://youtube.com/shorts/tXRpK1m5lPk?si=x4R51pcmH5bogP3r

    Couple that with more flexibility on guns and we can all be Dirty Harry!

  5. bwaghorn 5
    26 February 2025 at 12:02 pm

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360586868/fewer-police-officers-new-zealand-only-nine-months-meet-target-500-more

    I guess they're doing it because they are completely failing nz when it comes to policing

  6. Phillip ure 6
    26 February 2025 at 2:50 pm

    This is the outright stupidest idea this bunch of clowns has come up with..

    ..surely all the affected will be opposed to it…?

    ..and another one labour can promise to repeal as soon as they can…

    Citizens expected to be unpaid security guards for the supermarket duopoly…(!)

    …and violent incidents/harm guaranteed into the future .

    Absolutely barking…!

    • bwaghorn 6.1
      26 February 2025 at 3:03 pm

      At first glance my knee jerked and I thought great idea, but with a bit of thought and reading a few comments, it's a yeah nah from me .

      Didn't a shop keeper get stabbed in the street trying to stop a thief last year?

    • Mike the Lefty 6.2
      26 February 2025 at 9:43 pm

      Violent crime might be down, although the CoC predilection for cooking stats is well known, but what about other crime? Scams, white collar crime?

      No mention so we can assume it hasn't dropped because they would be crowing about that too.

      If your house gets burgled or property vandalised you might just get a police visit in a week if they can fit you in after their search for gang patches.

  8. bwaghorn 8
    26 February 2025 at 6:31 pm

    The nats new policy got slapped down magnificently on te news

  9. Incognito 9
    26 February 2025 at 7:09 pm

    The reforms announced on Wednesday include:

    • Changing the Crimes Act so citizens can intervene to stop any Crimes Act offence at any time of the day.
    • Requiring a person making an arrest contact the police and follow their instructions.
    • Clarifying restraints can be used, when reasonable, when making an arrest.
    • Changing the defence of property provisions to the Crimes Act so it is clear that reasonable force may be used.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/543061/details-of-new-citizen-s-arrest-rules-unveiled

    This is just open slather for some to man-handle others whenever they like and wherever they like. Surely, there should be a provision that the arresting person is not under the influence of anything and is of sound mind. I think they should do a 90-day field trial first in Epsom because the prison is close by and there are shops and schools in the neighbourhood that make it representative of the rest of the country.

    • weka 9.1
      26 February 2025 at 7:19 pm

      it's so bizarrely stupid that I'm tending to think it's a dead rat because there was something else going on with Bayly.

      • Incognito 9.1.1
        26 February 2025 at 7:24 pm

        Yes, a dead cat swallowing a dead rat 😉

        Let’s focus on Luxon again.

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          26 February 2025 at 7:26 pm

          lolnui. I'd really rather not. I need to go write some posts that aren't about National at all.

          • gsays 9.1.1.1.1
            26 February 2025 at 7:51 pm

            On a vaguely related note, I've had a crack at supermarkets in the past and in reply you have kinda defended or forgiven them.

            I'm just wondering if part of that is because they provide a wide range of supplies making it a godsend for those with mobility issues.

            All the talk above about supermarkets needing competition and everything will be ok is missing the point.

            The last thing we need (if we are serious about CC) is another company embedding diesel miles into essentially local produce based on the modern supermarket model. Then exporting the surplus (profits) overseas.

            • weka 9.1.1.1.1.1
              26 February 2025 at 8:23 pm

              I think you probably misunderstood my point, but feel free to link to it and I will take another look.

              Yes, there are mobility access issues. Time and financial poverty ones too.

              This is what transition is about. We have to bring people along at the same time as dismantling neoliberalism at the same time as building something coherent to replace it.

              To me it's a no brainer that we should be growing most of our food in NZ, close to where people live, and then producing food for places in the world that can't do that. The global economy is a hot fucking mess which will either collapse or kill us.

              So I agree with you that supermarkets are a big problem, and that competition is a bandaid. But food is central to people's security, so there we need good strategy to transition.

              • gsays …
                27 February 2025 at 12:36 pm

                https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-03-04-2024/#comment-1994824

                I found it and you were getting it in both ears from Mr Guyton and myself ( a personal hell for any sane person).

                It is about ease and that is all good. As you point out there aren't alternatives being articulated.

                • weka …
                  27 February 2025 at 7:17 pm

                  ease is your argument, not mine. My argument is around strategic transition as well as the limitations of the pro localisation counter culture being small L libertarians. I already pointed out that for some disabled people supermarkets are a necessity. I reread the thread and think I made a clear argument, so am perplexed by what you are still saying. You also didn't seem to rebut my points.

                  And I certainly didn't defend supermarkets and made that clear at the time.

                • weka …
                  28 February 2025 at 10:14 am

                  sorry if I was a bit blunt there. I've just spent a few days talking with Drowsy who did a similar thing of not understanding my points. If you want to argue your own points about supermarkets, I'm interested. I'm just not up for people misinterpreting my positions and then arguing against those misinterpretations. Not sure why people are doing this more now, and surprised to see if from both of you tbh.

                  • gsays …
                    28 February 2025 at 12:22 pm

                    All good at this end.

                    Where I think some of the miscommunication is is the brevity of texting versus a verbal conversation.

                    I'm often busting out a paragraph between jobs, tucked away when I should be working.

                    Each fortnight I take my elderly mother shopping. She needs either a walker or a supermarket trolley to hold on to for her mobility.

                    Each time for her to get in and out of the car takes a few minutes. I can only imagine what this must be like when wheelchair dependent and traveling independently.

                    My blase comment about ease was perhaps ill considered. What I am eluding to is the different products under one roof – butchery, groceries, tin products etc, big car park one bill to pay.

                    This is the convenience I'm talking about that most of us seek and value.

                    • weka …
                      28 February 2025 at 12:57 pm

                      Thanks for letting me know about the constraints on your commenting, that makes sense.

                      I think I take issue with the word convenience. People with certain kinds of lives and bodies may indeed find it convenient to shop under one roof, but they have choices. For some people short on time/money/physicality it’s not a convenience, it’s a necessity. If they had to go to lots of different places (the way things are now) they would end up not getting the foods they need.

                      My main objection in the other thread was the framing of supermarkets as a convenience when for some it’s actually how they can manage this most basic of survival functions (eating).

                      The frustration for me is the large group of people who feel like it’s a necessity but it’s really not. People who know climate change is real but act as if it’s someone else’s problem to solve and just carry on as usual. These people are driving me nuts.

                      I do think however that we (the localists) need better PR strategy. We have to find ways of making the transition attractive. Going hard against supermarkets over profit is good, as is supporting worker rights (which at some point might lead to actions around things like worker ownership/co-ops). But proposing making it harder for people to shop now is not going to get people on board.

                    • gsays []
                      28 February 2025 at 2:18 pm

                      More cold comfort coming up.

                      I was saying to Belladonna earlier it isn't just remove supermarkets and things carry on as they are. Other options will emerge, I don't know what they look like.

                      Yes I do speak from a place of privilege, middle class, largely independent for energy and food. That doesn't mean I'll stop agitating against these greedy parasites in our communities.

              • Belladonna …
                27 February 2025 at 12:39 pm

                There is also the economy of scale thing. It is (by and large) cheaper to buy essential goods at a supermarket.

                Certainly it's the cheapest way for people in large cities in NZ to buy. Markets tend to be the same or more expensive – and target the middle class with niche produce, rather than the 'bag of spuds' shopper). Fruit and vege shops can compete (I religiously shop at my local – use it or lose it), but local corner dairies or superettes are outcompeted on everything else. You actually see the dairy owners shopping at PakNSave for their supplies.

                When people have $60 to spend on their groceries for the week, they need to get every $$$ of value they can.

                • gsays …
                  27 February 2025 at 2:35 pm

                  What you d scribe is true, currently.

                  If we were to have a world without supermarkets then local food and produce providers emerge.

                  The status quo will not stay the same.

                  • Belladonna …
                    28 February 2025 at 1:16 pm

                    I'm sure they would emerge., The amount of choice would be drastically limited. Which I can live with. Those who are dependent on (for example) gluten-free diets may be considerably more circumscribed.

                    I don't see anything, though, that would result in cheaper costs. The fact that many of the cheaper products at the supermarket chains are imported ones, would logically seem to result in local-only produce costing more than the current status-quo.

                    • weka …
                      28 February 2025 at 1:19 pm

                      in a transitioning society, it's not the cost of groceries that matters, it's the ability to have food. If one's rent is half what it is now, and dental/healthcare are free, but the food had gone up 20%, that probably works out cheaper.

                • weka …
                  27 February 2025 at 7:18 pm

                  sure, but that's also because the global food supply chain outsources a bunch of costs around climate and pollution as well as wage slavery. If those were factored in, we'd know the true cost of food.

                  • Belladonna …
                    28 February 2025 at 12:07 pm

                    That is almost certainly true to some extent (though possibly less so for basic food, than for other goods. And there is the issue of local subsidies (French and Italian producers are subsidized by their governments to produce cheese and olive oil, for example) – which is a big part of why they're cheaper than NZ equivalents. Also relative local wages (rice farmers, for example, are not paid well by NZ standards, though they may be well-paid by local standards).

                    Knowing the true cost of food doesn't matter much, if you can't afford to pay it.

                • Descendant Of Smith …
                  28 February 2025 at 7:26 am

                  I'm finding though the orchards and market garden prices locally dearer than the supermarket in most cases. Apart from protest and travel miles there is little to entice buying from them.

                  The corn we bought recently from one was no cheaper and two pieces were partly rotten once opened up for instance. No savings there at all.

                  Once they were cheaper – now that seem to just match or expect you to pay more for the privilege of buying off them. Farmer's markets seem to be going the same way – pay a premium for their freshness.

                  • weka …
                    28 February 2025 at 10:16 am

                    I pay a premium for freshness. If I buy a bag of lettuce that was picked yesterday, it will easily last a week, whereas one from the supermarket might last a few days.

                    The problem with buying from markets etc is it's harder to return things if as you say the corn is rotten inside. But then I probably wouldn't bother with the supermarket either as I don't live close.

                  • Belladonna …
                    28 February 2025 at 12:09 pm

                    I agree. The pick your own places close to Auckland – are at least as expensive as buying from the supermarket or local vege shop. And they're not having to pay for the labour costs.

                    I believe this is, in part, driven by people picking for on-selling, rather than personal use.

        • gsays 9.1.1.2
          26 February 2025 at 7:40 pm

          I must admit to typing but then deleting, on the Bayly post, at least we've stopped talking about school lunches.

  10. weka 10
    26 February 2025 at 7:48 pm

    Opposed by:

    – Retail NZ

    – Employers & Manufacturers

    – Police

    – Unions

    Supported by: – Destiny Church

    🤡🤡🤡

    https://x.com/lachlanp_/status/1894639890337538125

  11. AB 11
    26 February 2025 at 9:55 pm

    Would someone who initiated a citizen's arrest be seen as as a reliable witness in court – or have they already pre-judged the incident and formed a conclusion that they will be at pains to justify in any evidence they give?

    Will this tool be predominantly used against children and women as they may be perceived as easier to restrain?

    Will this tool be predominantly used against brown/black people as they are viewed by some people as inherently more likely to be criminal?

    Who is liable for rehabilitation/health care if a worker is injured trying to restrain someone they suspect of stealing?

    What if the Police are busy and won't be there for several hours? Will the suspected thief be locked in a storeroom (if there is one), tied hand and foot, padlocked to the bicycle rack on the pavement, tethered to a lamp-post, or summarily executed by Nicole McKee in the carpark?

    Where is Mark Mitchell and why has he not resigned yet for not reducing crime?

    Can I execute a citizen's arrest on Mr Luxon for stealing money from public services like hospitals that serve those in need and giving it to those not in need – like landlords? Or is this not a 'retail' crime?

    Conclusion: when you lie during an election campaign about the level of crime, the trends in crime, and most of all about your ability to reduce crime, then you paint yourself into a nasty corner where you are likely to do all sorts of dumb shit in order to 'deliver' on your promise. Only the most cynical, self-serving and contemptible of fools make that mistake – but hey that's the National Party we know and love so much.

  12. hereni kiwi 12
    27 February 2025 at 5:00 pm

    As someone who worked a number of years in retail and attended numerous security training sessions, I could go on at length, but I'll just say

    1. Shoplifters are often the last people you would suspect. Often it's the regular customers who've worked out where the blind spots are. They'll buy something and chat away, but at the same time they'll be pocketing the more expensive goods. Despite the cliche of the poor old pensioner who shoplifts out of dire need, it's surprising how often, when the police search their home, it's filled with a load of expensive brand goods – and no receipt.

    2. More theft is actually committed by staff than the public, whether it's the counter staff pinching something from the store room and handing it through a window to a helper outside, or the manger fiddling the books. Or how about business owners dodging taxes. Seymour makes a big noise about violent crime and benefit fraud, but never mentions white collar crime – maybe because he's afraid too many in his rich electorate would be nabbed.

    3. There is a very important word missing here, which any lawyer would immediately noticed, and that word is. "alleged". Or "suspected". It is a basic principle of our law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This proposed law seems to assume, and a lot of commenters here are assuming, that if someone thinks they see a shoplifter and performs a citizen's arrest, that person must be guilty – even before they are charged (assuming the police agree there is enough evidence to lay a charge) let alone being tried and then convicted. THis is the main reason why shop owners and staff need to be super careful how they approach suspected shoplifters. If someone is tried and found not guilty, the accuser can be in for a world of grief – sued for slander, potentially charged with perjury themselves – and if they use force wrongfully, be charged with assault themselves.

    In short, the dipshits who are proposing this idiocy are ignorant of the law. Hopefully some legal advisor in the govt will point out the serious flaws and potentially very expensive consequences to anyone who is silly enough to try vigilante tactics.

    Too many people's idea of the law is derived largely from (American) TV and movie policing and legal dramas. I should add, my father was a lawyer, and that was his opinion, not mine.

  13. thinker 13
    28 February 2025 at 7:18 am

    Hope there's a similar law to detain price-gougers and people who keep two sets of books.