Spot-on, BazzaS. To answer your question about legal protection, RayanD, private security do not enjoy the powers, privileges and protections that warranted police officers enjoy as part of their duties and responsibilities of the office of Constable. The alarm you refer to is not as reliable as retailers and the manufacturers would have people believe.

If they do, they so entirely at their own risk.

They can ask her to leave.

You don't happen to post on another advice website, albeit under another username, by any chance? Your style of posting seems very familiar.

The TK Maxx Loss Prevention Manager who started this thread advised that TK Maxx wait for alleged shoplifters to commit two offences before doing anything about it. Being a former policeman, I have serious doubts as to the lawfulness of such a practice. Certainly, a legal professional would challenge it if a case ever went to court. Unless they physically witnessed your friend change the labels with their own eyes - CCTV footage alone is not enough - it would be difficult for them to justify contacting the police. If your friend did not succeed in obtaining a pecuniary advantage - a discount - without actually seeing them change the labels, it is difficult for TK Maxx to do anything. As for T K Maxx putting people's photos in local newspapers, unless they have irrefutable evidence of any criminal offence, they would be very unwise to do so. A convenience store, near to where I live, put up photos of people they "believed" had stolen from their shop in the window, facing outwards. When someone they accused threatened them with legal action, they made the mistake of claiming the police told them to do it. The person then checked with the police who paid the retailer a visit and ordered them to take the photos out of the window.

In which retail outlet did this incident occur?

Now who could you possibly be referring to, BN?

Wonder of wonders. The police actually removed the bailiff for trespassing. It's a start, but let's see if the police go the extra mile and start probing Crapita and the Revenues Department of Barnet Council. That should have Crapita howling protests from the rooftops.

The idea is simple and workable. As long as any liability is sanctioned by way of the appropriate Attachment Order and sanctioned by a court of law, not some administrative office masquerading as a court of law and staffed by rubber-stamping clowns without so much as a day's legal training, and is fully and publicly accountable, there is no reason why it should not work. Keeping out the likes of Capita, Liberata and Vertex should be a priority. Where local authorities and police forces have been told to privatise services, on investigation, they have found it is more economical and better value for money to keep services in-house. As an actual example, Avon & Somerset Police were told to privatise their custody service. When they costed their existing in-house provision against that of the government's "preferred" contractor, it showed the in-house provision was £600,000 a year cheaper than the "preferred" contractor. Not surprisingly, Avon & Somerset Police are keeping their custody service in-house.

That is the here and now. However, I would disagree that the civil enforcement industry will not, at some point in the future, be forced to call it a day. The industry has been drinking in the Last Chance Saloon for far too long and "time" was called sometime ago. Whether the new regs will prove to be anywhere near as effective as the politicians claim in clamping down on malpractice is yet to be seen. TEC needs looking at and, if necessary, those running it on a day-to-day basis, being either replaced or given an almighty rollicking. In a case I became aware of a few weeks ago, a person sent their forms and SD to TEC and the next thing they knew, they had the Mr McGovern on their doorstep being his usual charming self. When the person rang TEC to find out what was going on, TEC admitted they had lost the forms at TEC, but they could not be held liable for their carelessness. The person is now pursuing the matter with HMCTS at senior management level. More recently, I had the good fortune to see the attempts of a local authority and a magistrates court to hoodwink the public over Council Tax Liability Orders. The alleged summons had a message on the reverse, actively telling people not to go to court! The LO was even worse. A landscape A4 sheet that had clearly had the date pre-printed on it and then signed. No proof that it was signed on the date it was claimed to have been signed. For all we know, it could have been signed the day or a week before! Even a District Judge in the County Court had their doubts about them, but because the LOs had been granted by the magistrates, they could not overturned them. Some serious questions need to be asked as to why there are so many outstanding public debts, whether these debts do, in fact, exist, or are, simply, the inane blatherings of a corrupt government that is desperate for cash.

I can see this matter becoming a major scandal, TT, and once the proverbial hits the air conditioning, I can see the whole issue of using private-sector civil enforcement companies to enforce public debt or alleged public debt coming into sharp focus and some serious questions being asked in certain places. Certain civil enforcement companies might wish to start putting matters right before they are forced into doing so. If they think they can force those they extorted money and vehicles from as a result of their questionable behaviour during these OPERATION CUBO roadside operations, to pursue them through the courts, then the senior management of the civil enforcement companies really do need to wake up and face the fact that the analogy I described in the past of the civil enforcement industry hurtling towards the edge of a precipice and into an abyss of no return may well cease to be an analogy and become a reality.

What you say is true, UB. The number of private prosecutions has increased markedly in recent years.

What you have said is correct, CF, and your suggestion of all court-issued documents bearing a holographic seal is sound and should be followed up. Couple that to ensuring documents are printed on security paper instead of plain paper, as at present, would make it even more difficult to falsify court documents. The HCEO involved in the unlawful eviction I referred to earlier is as much a victim of someone's dishonesty as the unfortunate evictee. It is my understanding that since learning the CCJ used to obtain the Writ has never been granted, the HCEO has made a witness statement.

My username should give you a clue as to what I used to do for a living. And, no, it is FMOTL territory. What I have described is how you initiate a private prosecution. You clearly haven't got a clue how the Criminal Justice system works.

I don't think you understand at all. In fact, you don't appear to have made any useful contribution whatsoever other than to ask inane questions which you could have found the answers to yourself, simply by using a search engine and investing 20 minutes or so of your time. Instead, you have wasted my time. And for your information, there are Freemasons who do a lot of good for the community and society as a whole, but there are also Freemasons who behave in a manner that leaves other Freemasons feeling very uncomfortable and disgusted. The matter of Fraudulent/Unlawful Mortgage Foreclosure and Loan Fraud by financial institutions is very real and very serious. I hope you never find yourself in the position of having your home fraudulently/unlawfully repossessed because it causes untold harm and trauma to real people.

Because the CPS and police have all but lost the confidence of the public, more and more people are turning to private prosecutions in order to seek justice in criminal matters. I have been told of this by a barrister I know. Private prosecutions are normally initiated by the laying of an Information before a Justice of the Peace with a view to a Summons being issued or a Warrant being issued for the arrest of the offender. Arrest Warrants have to be executed by a Constable and are normally issued in cases where the offender is likely to abscond or the offence is very serious. They are an order to each and every police officer within a given area to arrest the person named on the Warrant and bring them before the court. On hearing the Information, if a Justice of the Peace is satisfied grounds exist, they will authorise a Summons be issued and the offender summoned to court to answer the allegations the Complainant has made. At the hearing, the Defendant will be asked to enter a plea and, if the offence of which they are accused is one where they can elect to be tried by the Justices or the Crown Court and they elect for trial by jury, the Justices will become Examining Magistrates and examine the evidence to determine whether it should be committed the Crown Court for trial. In the case of Indictable Only offences, the Justices' hands are tied and committal is a formality. If the offence is a Summary Offence or the Defendant elects to be tried by the Justices, the Justices become Trial Magistrates and hear the evidence for both sides before making their decision. Bear in mind, however, that there are some offences which require the consent of the Attorney-General or DPP to pursue a prosecution.

I think you will masonic loyalties are playing a part in the property grabs in some cases, BN. Once you realise bankers, civil servants, judges, lawyers and police officers tend to be members of the brotherhood, it doesn't take a lot to work out what's going on. I know some lower degree masons who have voiced to me that they are very unhappy about what is going on.

TT, I am having problems sending PMs for some reason. If you give me a ring on my landline number sometime on Tuesday, I can provide you with more details.

As you know, BN, it is happening on an industrial scale. There seem to be a number of law firms, lenders, estate agents, auction houses and banks, some of them German banks, whose names keep cropping up.

If you could clear some space in your PM Inbox, TT, I will address your concerns off forum. This is because the case involving the HCEO is ongoing as are a number of other cases.

@@@@

Our posts have crossed, Dodgeball, as I had a glitch with the voice-recognition software installed in my laptop which caused text to post before I had finished dictating the post I have now posted. Because of the almost total loss of confidence in the CPS and police, people are now pursuing private prosecutions a lot more than they did, say, 10 years ago. Yes, there is legislation that allows private prosecutions to be pursued, namely Section 6(1), Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. I will say that a number of cases I have been involved in have involved people who have followed FMOTL theories and matters have gone mammaries skywards as a result. Those cases, I have to say, are difficult to deal with. Equally, I have been involved with cases involving well-educated people who have done things in strict accordance with the law and been shafted by a regulatory system that is not fit for purpose and politicians who have allowed themselves to be seduced by the siren voices in the City of London.

A number of cases are being pursued by way of private prosecution due to an almost total loss of public confidence in the CPS and police. Incidentally, the number of private prosecutions has increased sharply in recent years. One case I was briefly involved with in an advisory capacity, is currently with the Serious Fraud Office due to the sums of money involved. Without prejudicing cases currently being investigated and litigated, I will say that where county court bailiffs have been involved in evictions relating to alleged mortgage repossessions which have been shown to be suspicious or fraudulent, the decent ones withdraw to allow further investigations and representations to take place. However, there are some county court bailiffs who should never have been appointed as county court bailiffs. There have also been cases where, when challenged to produce paperwork for inspection, persons purporting to be county court bailiffs have turned and fled. Because the police regard the vast majority of crimes these days as civil matters, it falls upon retired police officers and law enforcement officers to conduct the investigations into these matters. Turning to warrants of entry for alleged utility bill debts, the most common anomalies on Warrants of Entry are - a. the signature of the JP alleged to have signed the warrant is smudged; b. the utility company employees suddenly develop convenient amnesia when challenged as to the name of the JP who is alleged to have signed the warrant; c. the court has no record of the warrant being applied for or the hearing at which the warrant was signed.

Sending you a PM, TT.

You're welcome.