I have had a change of heart.

In the past, it seemed to me that random Stop and Search policies only deter thieves who are easily intimidated. I reasoned that if a thief had stolen goods or information on his person, he had no reason to allow Grattan’s security guards to search him. The security guards would not be foolish enough to use force to search him, especially if he had been stopped at random. All he would have to fear would be disciplinary action, and the worse that could happen would be dismissal. If he did allow the guards to search him, it would lead to conviction and perhaps imprisonment. Even if the security guards had actually stopped him because of reasonable suspicion, he would still have nothing to lose by refusing to be searched. However, I now realise that this argument is irrelevant, as thieves are easily intimidated. I hadn’t even stolen anything, but the Otto UK Group Security Manager, Allan Lambert, read the following from paragraph 34 of his statement: -

"Since I joined Grattan in 1996 only one person, Mr Trotter, has objected to being searched."

In their Decision, the EAT mentioned my "principled" stance. However, my principles, such as they were, were practical rather than moral. I certainly wasn’t on a crusade for the rights of employees. I did think that a result in my favour would be beneficial to most people, and for that reason I was not prepared to make too much of a personal investment in the case. In fact, I thought that if I lost, most people would be responsible for the consequences, to themselves, of that loss.

I gave the Tribunal and the EAT (and, by extension, England) opportunities to find that random body and mobile ‘phone searches for information, by private security guards, are unreasonable. The Tribunal and the EAT declined those opportunities, and I now see that England is better off for those decisions.

Is it justifiable for private security guards to perform random body and mobile ‘phone searches for information? The police cannot do that. Nor can HM Customs and Excise. The Tribunal found that it is reasonable for private security guards to do it, if there is a possibility that employees can steal information. At the time of the hearings, I did feel that Grattan’s actions were over the top.

However, I have changed my mind. I have learned to love Big Brother. It is not a case of private security guards having too much power. It is a case of public authorities having too little power. The Human Rights and Data Protection Acts, although introduced only a few years ago, have already been made obsolete by more recent events. Public authorities frequently blame those Acts when they fail to prevent sensational crimes, etc.

Besides, according to Grattan plc, the trade unions found their particular type of Stop and Search policy perfectly acceptable. At first, I thought that it was a case of shop stewards being more concerned with making sure that management employees were treated as badly as shop floor employees, than with improving the treatment of union members. Again, I have changed my mind. No less a personage than Sir William Morris KBE himself was on the EAT. His knighthood is, I presume, recognition by the Establishment of his work on behalf of the rights of workers. Also, as the Tribunal put it in paragraph 31 of its Decision,

"In our view, this policy did not present a problem to the vast majority of the workforce."

The opinions of those individuals and organisations, combined with what I have been through and my contemplation of England’s workforce, have caused me to have a change of heart. Random body and ‘phone searches for information are necessary in the new Britain, and employers would be foolish not to take cognisance of that fact.