RLP Victims-Has anyone got a copy of notices they asked you to sign ?

[Guest Andropod]

How do you know I was referring to you ?

 

I may have mistaken your question as being directed at me. I apologise.

 

The point I would like to make is that I agree that RLP and Drydens to a degree are in some cases taking out inappropriate action against individuals, but since they are acting under instruction from a retailer it is the retailer who will be at fault. The decision to take out civil recovery will be taken at store level, nowadays this invariably means filling in a standard form which is sent off to the CR company/solicitors without any review higher up the retail food chain. It is not beyonds the bounds of possibilty that this information is then dealt with by the CR company through an semi-automated process with little in the way of review by them, so the potential for a claim to be instigated incorrectly is huge. Given this potential for wrongful action the number of serious complaints arising from the activities of the CR companies are really small, something like less than 0.1%. We must not confuse the incompentency of store based retail Loss Prevention personnel to mean a conspiracy by the CR companies to bully perfectly innocent people into parting with money by pretences. In the overwhelming vast majority of CR cases the individuals submitted with CR action are apprehended within the law, committing a criminal act and are probably not dealt with by the Police so will not face any form of sanction, apart from a pointless banning letter and the CR. (The Police are not taking action because the crime wasn't there, but because they are too overstretched and are generally not interested where there was a lack of violence, the monetary values involved were small and particularly these days where the losses were incurred by a private company who can afford their own legal action. What ever the Police say this is the reality in most towns.)

 

The retailers therefore are exercising their legal right (as we all have) to seek compensation for the costs incurred in dealing with the shoplifter or fraudster (they certainly do not invite crime into their businesses but do have to deal with the fallout). The vast majority of people who get served with CR, are unfortunately for society, dishonest shoplifters and in all truth are just unlucky to be caught and very lucky not to get a criminal record because of our overburdened Police. Such people should pay for their criminal actions, whether through the criminal justice system or through civil action- it does not matter. That all said, CR should be better regulated and more care should be taken by retailers to ensure it is only used appropriately and should be proportionate to the nature of the offence and what the losses were, if the CR companies bear any responsibility it is to ensure they properly review each case before despatching a notice. We should not allow knee jerk reaction to let criminals off the hook and decry any use of CR! If the student who posted on this site freely admits they tried to defraud TKMAXX but was caught then tough luck on that front and pay up, and they should consider themselves lucky they are not getting a criminal record! Crime costs us all in the long run.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Andropod

[ScarletPimpernel]

Such people should pay for their criminal actions, whether through the criminal justice system or through civil action- it does not matter.

 

Do you really believe that there's no need to comply with the basic human right of a fair trial, or provide proper evidence - just let self-appointed people with a vested interest act as accusers, judge, jury and executioner?

 

If you read the CAB report, you'll see that the civil recovery concept was designed to deal with people who had already been convicted by the proper authorities - and no-one here has a problem with that. Of course, it would also be perfectly feasible for retailers to bring private prosecutions in cases where the police, for whatever reason, do not take action.

 

What you are proposing is a system which doesn't require the police or courts, because you think that retailers, their security guards and RLP are always right and the people they accuse are always wrong. I've seen a community where the same logic is used - in Northern Ireland, where on some estates paramilitary gangs dispense summary punishments. A number of people were murdered by paramilitaries because they were accused of being police touts - the fact that they weren't didn't matter - it was done as much pour encourager les autres as anything else - rather like retailers suggesting that civil recovery is a deterrent. It's not a state of affairs that I think is right, and nor is it one I would wish to see spread.

[Guest Andropod]

Nobody is condoning summary justice. Nor am I. I am not sure how RLP would feel about being compared to the IRA or Loyalist extremists and I think that is a lazy argument. Next thing I'll be accused of condoing a police state like that of the Nazis.

 

I am 100% in favour of human rights, and the law is there precisely to protect those rights for everyone and does a pretty good job most of the time. I am talking about upholding justice, the very essence of law that dictates somone who freely commits a crime against someone else should be accountable for their actions.

 

Civil recovery has in part come to the UK because of the reality that the criminal justice system is moving away, at a rapid rate, from the prosecution of so called minor offences. This leaves the victims with no recourse. There is in law, still, a fundemental right for victims to seek justice and recompense. In the case of a civil action it still requires that proper evidence be presented, in English and European law it isn't an arbritrary process at all and if necessary a case will have to stand up to legal scrutiny in a court. If the correct procedure is followed there is no more likelyhood of an innocent person being asked to pay costs through civil recovery than there is them of being wrongly convicted of an offence in a criminal court. The right to seek compensation for losses or injury as a result of someone elses wilful and criminal actions is a basic right enshrined in law since the middle ages, whether smart companies like RLP see a way of using this to assist their clients or not and we should not think about changing it.

 

The issues identified by the CAB have nothing to do with tort law being wrong. It is the incompetent and lazy manner with which the otherwise sound legal process of civil recovery is being used by retailers, RLP and others that is the cause of the issue. I maintain that 99% of the serious complaints I have heard are clearly as a result of over zealous application, probably at a very low level within a retail organisation of the civil recovery process. In other words some idiot has filled in the CR form and sent it to the agency (RLP) without considering whether the person apprehended was actually liable or should even be subject to the process.

 

My argument is that we should not throw out the concept of civil recovery on the basis of halve truths and innuendo, in doing so possibly creating a thieves charter. I have seen for myself the sheer number of people who steal from or defraud retailers, it is a massive problem and costs £100s of millions every year, "well they can afford it anyway?" is a common saying. The fact retailers are businesses that make lots of money does not mean they should lie down and let people steal from them. They have the moral and legal right to apprehend people that do, and then seek from them compensation for the costs involved in doing so. Nothing else. I would totally condemn any that saw CR as an opportunity to make money or to take advantage of the vunerable or innocent, it isn't. This is about using the law and legal process to recover losses with proper procedure and evidence to back that claim up. I just cannot see any viable argument against this.

[JonCris]

Andropod are you a RLP troll? If not stop moralizing that is not what this site is about. Also just so we are clear the OP DID NOT attempt to defraud anyone & if you think so that's your interpretation

 

Despite what you think there are measures available to retailers for recovering their losses AFTER conviction not before Your a person who thinks because a security guard alleges a crime has been commited that should be enough to permit a retailer via RLP to make demands on someone who has never been convicted of an offense ........ sorry some of us find this whole thing morally offensive in the extreme & with a little help from others we will bring this pernicious unsavory behaviour to an end

[JonCris]

PS I note your comments about halve truths & innuendo etc I'm only going to say this once but almost all of the cases mentioned on this site can & are being supported by hard evidence

 

Also no one I know objects to civil recovery we only think it should be used against CONVICTED shoplifters not those who are only accused often in very dubious circumstances

[JonCris]

Again reading you thread I note that you & those like you believe you have the right to be judge, jury & executioner Why don't we just do away with the criminal courts all together & let you & like minded people deliver summary justice to those even just 'accused' of shoplifting

 

Please don't use the 'overburdened' police argument. If retailers feel they are being neglected then lobby government to have them change it otherwise welcome to our world

[JonCris]

Andropod be very careful about accusing people on here of criminal behaviour particularly when you don't & can't know the full facts. Despite what you think you know things aren't always what they seem

[JonCris]

When Professor Bamfield introduced the concept of civil recovery it was only to be used against 'convicted' criminals in fact his test cases were against 'convicted' shoplifters not just those accused of theft. Furthermore if you have read the CAB report as you claim you will note what he now says about it's current use ...... he no longer approves

[ScarletPimpernel]

Nobody is condoning summary justice. Nor am I. Yes you are. I am not sure how RLP would feel about being compared to the IRA or Loyalist extremists and I think that is a lazy argument. Frankly, I couldn't care less how RLP feel - if a corporate body is capable of feeling. The argument is not lazy; it's perfectly valid. Both paramilitaries and RLP seek to bypass the proper legal system; both use the excuse of lack of police interest in their particular niche area; both accuse people of wrongdoing without proper evidence, and seek to exact revenge; both exploit vulnerable people; and the interest of both is in making money. Next thing I'll be accused of condoing a police state like that of the Nazis. Not by me, but since you mention the Nazis, you may like to look at RLP's PR (especially pre-CAB report, after which ACPO and various other bodies made them remove dubious claims from their website), which appeared to be based upon Goebbel's theory that if you tell a big enough lie, and repeat it often enough, people will come to believe it.

 

I am 100% in favour of human rights, and the law is there precisely to protect those rights for everyone and does a pretty good job most of the time. I am talking about upholding justice, the very essence of law that dictates somone who freely commits a crime against someone else should be accountable for their actions. One of the finest examples of muddled thinking I have ever seen

 

Civil recovery has in part come to the UK because of the reality that the criminal justice system is moving away, at a rapid rate, from the prosecution of so called minor offences. This leaves the victims with no recourse. There is in law, still, a fundemental right for victims to seek justice and recompense. In the case of a civil action it still requires that proper evidence be presented, in English and European law it isn't an arbritrary process at all and if necessary a case will have to stand up to legal scrutiny in a court. If the correct procedure is followed there is no more likelyhood of an innocent person being asked to pay costs through civil recovery than there is them of being wrongly convicted of an offence in a criminal court. The right to seek compensation for losses or injury as a result of someone elses wilful and criminal actions is a basic right enshrined in law since the middle ages, whether smart companies like RLP see a way of using this to assist their clients or not and we should not think about changing it. Again you are quite wrong, and even RLP don't subscribe to this theory - they never take anyone to court, so seem keen not to have their cases scrutinised by the judicial system. They quote three cases, but all of those involved convicted thieves - and just to remind you, that's what the concept of civil recovery was designed to deal with. Retailers could easily bring cases under existing legislation - but they appear reluctant to do so. You say, in a blasé way, that there is "no more likelyhood (sic) of an innocent person being asked to pay costs through civil recovery than there is them of being wrongly convicted of an offence in a criminal court." Firstly, we'll never know, because RLP don't go to court, and secondly, RLP clearly don't care whether or not their victims have done anything wrong or not; thethey are strangers to the concept of due diligence. Similarly, they ignore one of the fundamental tenets of law - that an individual is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Unless they are pursuing convicted theives, all their targets are innocent.

 

The issues identified by the CAB have nothing to do with tort law being wrong. It is the incompetent and lazy manner with which the otherwise sound legal process of civil recovery is being used by retailers, RLP and others that is the cause of the issue. I maintain that 99% of the serious complaints I have heard are clearly as a result of over zealous application, probably at a very low level within a retail organisation of the civil recovery process. In other words some idiot has filled in the CR form and sent it to the agency (RLP) without considering whether the person apprehended was actually liable or should even be subject to the process. The whole system is flawed, and the f;aws originate with RLP and their ilk moving away from civil recovery being about dealing with those convicted by the proper authorities.

 

My argument is that we should not throw out the concept of civil recovery on the basis of halve truths and innuendo, in doing so possibly creating a thieves charter. I have seen for myself the sheer number of people who steal from or defraud retailers, it is a massive problem and costs £100s of millions every year, "well they can afford it anyway?" is a common saying. The fact retailers are businesses that make lots of money does not mean they should lie down and let people steal from them. They have the moral and legal right to apprehend people that do, and then seek from them compensation for the costs involved in doing so. Nothing else. I would totally condemn any that saw CR as an opportunity to make money or to take advantage of the vunerable or innocent, it isn't. Well, money is the only reason RLP are in business, and the only reason they operate as they do. If they stuck to chasing convicted thieves, they'd very quickly go out of business. This is about using the law and legal process to recover losses with proper procedure and evidence to back that claim up. I just cannot see any viable argument against this. But that isn't the way that civil recovery, as operated by RLP and their retailer clients, is used.

 

 

From the retailers point of view, I imaging the attraction of RLP's offering is that they need do very little, and if someone is foolish enough to pay, their cut of the money is additional profit - the cost of security etc. already being factored into their prices along with all their other overheads.

 

There simply cannot be, in a civilised society, a parallel justice system - especially one in which the 'prosecution' has a financial interest in a 'guilty' outcome.

[JonCris]

Quite SP In fact I understand at least one retailer claims it's profitable so they now see it as a profit stream.

 

This makes me wonder if they could do something to reduce incidents why don't they In otherwords if it's profitable why would they

[Guest Andropod]

Okay. As always debate rages and is perhaps not really appropriate for this particular forum.

 

I think there is a basic mis-understanding here about the purpose of Civil Recovery. Many people are tying it to the criminal justice process, indeed the claim being made is the CR should only be used in cases where an individual has already been convicted for the offence leading to the CR claim. Where this is wrong, along with the idea of CR being summary justice, is the assumption the CR is to do with the offence (under the theft act), or put it another way: the offence of theft is what is being judged in the CR action. It is not. The CR action is concerned with recompense for the costs arising from the apprehension of the individual. Any activity within an organisation costs money. The rule being applied here under Tort is that if Joe Bloggs did not enter the store and did not get apprehended in the process of stealing goods from the store then the time taken by the store employees to deal with Joe could have been spent doing something else. So Joe is legally responsible for the costs associated with the apprehension regardless of any subsequent criminal action. However, for the CR action to be valid there still needs to be the same basic burden of evidence as if it was a criminal case, although the burden of proof is somewhat lower than "beyond reasonable doubt", best practice would dictate it needs to be the same (if you do not believe me read up on it). The action will also include costs associated with the CR agency (RLP) sending the letter and processing the case. Again these costs will be justified on the basis Joe started the whole thing off.

 

It is imperative that the costs being claimed for are transparent and relate solely to the costs incurred, it would be illegal and indeed immoral for the victim (retailer) to make a profit from such an action although I am sure RLP will be making money in their table of costs. (I dare anyone here to name the retail company they think is making a profit from CR!)

 

Now whether this is morally right or not is perhaps another debate. Certainly the law being used here is sound since it also drives many other legal undertakings.

 

My advice to anyone who has received a CR notice is simple though. If you haven't done anything wrong and the retailer or RLP cannot prove a case against you then write to their (the retailers) head office and contest the action. Don't bother with RLP, they are only acting under instruction anyway and will not drop the action without the retailer's consent. If on the otherhand (for instance) the store security team has good quality CCTV footage of you carrying out the selection and concealment of goods, then footage of you leaving the store without attempting to pay for the concealed goods, recovered the goods from you and have all of the correct paperwork filled in and signed by you and then then I'm afraid your unlikely to get the action stopped although you're free to try.

[JonCris]

I see only you understands civil recovery & of course everyone involved acts scrumptiously at all times. Either you being very disingenuous or you really don't know whats going on. I'll assume the latter

 

In case you don't understand people are being accused & being found guilty of criminal acts without the benefit of a trial & if you think a letter to the retailer telling them your innocent will do the trick your kidding yourself AND even if on the very rare occasion the retailer has agreed the demands for money will continue

 

You'll no doubt claim that if they sign a notice or accept a caution they are admitting guilt.

 

This is the scenario Victim is confronted by security & accused of criminal theft or damage they are then marched to a closed office & detained the accusations are repeated (usually more forcefully) They are threatened with the police & if the police are called they will threaten accept a FPN or be arrested handcuffed & locked in a cell Even the innocent will take the course of least resistance they'll accept the fine or even the caution if already at the nick

 

This system as used is no better than that of a kangaroo court a disgrace to fair play

[ScarletPimpernel]

Thank you for clarifying your points.

 

However, you still do not seem to see the fundamental point, which is that CR as it is currently used seeks to bypass the legal system.

 

Using your example, Joe Bloggs is stopped by a security guard who thinks he has seen Joe take something. Unless the guard calls the police, and Joe is subsequently charged and convicted in a Court, Joe is innocent in the eyes of the law. The alleged theft remains unproven, and under the way CR is currently used, Joe is branded a thief by RLP (they refer to their victims as offenders, even where they have not been charged or convicted), and is then subjected to a series of deceitful and misleading letters which rely upon Joe not being aware of the law or his rights, and are designed to scare or share him into paying. Many of the cases we see here are much less clear cut than a guard saying that an offence was seen to be committed. In particular, there are the worrying number of cases in which RLP target minors, in the hope that parents will pay out of shame (this is a documented tactic, incidentally), and other vulnerable people. I see what you are saying about there needing to be evidence and the balance of probabilities, but you have missed the point; RLP don't bother with this because they never go before a court. If RLP's begging letters are ignored, they just go away. They haven't taken a case to court (save the 3 early ones, all of which involved convicted thieves), ever. Eversheds have brought some cases to court, but only got judgment by default.

 

Here's another problem with CR as it is at the moment - the vulnerable. If someone is apprehended, and after police investigation is charged and brought before the court, part of the process is that the court will take into account mitigating factors - mental health issues, for example - and deal appropriately.

 

You are ignoring the point that stores have to pay for security in any case; it's an overhead like power and light, so they build it into their prices. It seems to me that the cost of a security guard is the same (i.e. min wage) whether he's standing on the shop floor, dealing with a suspected shoplifter or sitting in the canteen inspecting his navel.

 

I'd also be interested to know what part RLP and the like play in dealing with organised crime, which appears to be responsible for the majority of the loss in value terms - and which is, of course, dealt with by police and courts.

 

On teh subject of the police, I was chatting today with a friend who is with the Met, based at a central London police station. IHe tells me that there are major operations almost daily targetting organised shoplifting, so the retail industry's bleating that police don't take it seriously appear to be without foundation. On the subject of why police do not always attend minor shoplifting allegations, he says that they do attend where they can (all calls are prioritised), but they get sick of security guards and shop staff making c0ck-ups and false allegations, wasting police time.

 

I note you mention paperwork signed by alleged shoplifters; I wonder if it's made clear to people that they only person they are obliged to give their name and address to is a police officer in uniform? If an individual exercises his right not to tell a security guard his details, what can they do - detain them unlawfully until they talk, or what?

[JonCris]

Just been talking to a female relative who knows of my interest in this & she has told me an enlightening story which goes some way to confirming suspicion that many security guards target females minors & the vulnerable

 

Toiletry section in retailer we know uses CR - large gentleman of what she believes was of Caribbean extraction opens deodorant - squirts small amount to check smell returns it to shelf walks away - some moments he later (approx 1minute) white female does the same - moments later is confronted by security guard who accuses her of criminal damage event though he must have seen the 1st person do the same he has decided to pick on the female - unfortunately for the guard &, this is why I wish I'd been there, the female turns out to be the companion of the large Caribbean gent:D who returns to confront the security guard to ask "what the hell do you think your doing man":mad: - Fortunately for the security guard who by now (according to the witness) realized the error of his ways all ended peacefully & the couple went on their way unmolested vowing never to shop there again

[Guest Andropod]

It seems of course that everyone has anecdotal evidence for the incompetency of store security personnel. Having previously worked in that area I can only agree, the level of ability and training does not match the potential implications their actions can cause. But we are where we are on this, security personnel at that level are badly paid and are not always of the required intellect or calibre, in addition of course they do a difficult job and regularly encounter some very nasty people intent on doing them harm for the sake of a packet of razors or whatever.

 

From my own experience involved in the training of store based security/LP officers it is absolutely imperative that an arrest (and I use that word advisedly) should only be carried out if you have the required evidence and in this day and age that means invariably good quality CCTV footage (which shows an intent to steal, the act of concealment if there was one and the actual action of avoiding to pay) or more than one independant witness to verify this occured, more than just the security person on their own in other words. With this evidence CR is a given in most cases, so in some ways nobody should ever be submitted with a notice of CR unless the evidence required for a criminal conviction is in place as well. Unfortunately the litany of cases being brought up on this site on the TV and in reports indicates that there is a basic failing in the initial decision to use CR or not and then the backup checking by companies like RLP. I maintain that such process will be automated to a degree, hence the failings in the system. I am not trying to defend RLP or make them out as the good guys, they bear a heavy responsibility for checking every claim as being valid, clearly they do not do this as much as they seem to make out.

 

I am really pleased with the tone of the recent posts on this subject. This isn't about us and you (us being people like me who have had a previous career in retail security). It's about right or wrong. Should people that do wrong be accountable, hell yes, should innocent people be wrongly accused, absolutely not, should innocent people be chased for money- no way. But we should not argue about the issue of innocent until proven guilty, the civil legal process is different to criminal law and in any case if the person who has receives the claim is really innocent they can contest in court. CR companies will avoid this like the plague by the way, just in case they are exposed as not having built a strong enough case based on a report from a badly trainined store security guard. The reliance though on the judicial process to convict on a criminal charge to prove a consequantial loss has occured for a CR claim is unweildy and frankly never going to work. For one, it is not unknown for the criminal court judge to award compensation, often of a lower amount than the losses incurred, (say for a broken window) in this scenario the victim is out of pocket and at that stage CR will not be possible as the award will supercede any other action. Another is that more and more offences are being dealt with by means of fixed penalty notice where there is no judicial process at all, are we to believe then that such processes are an infringement on human rights because there was no trial or court hearing. It will not be long before offences such as petty theft like shoplifting (and like public order already have) fall, into this category.

 

The reason why CR is so popular with retailers is because:- 1) RLP and other companies work on a no win no fee cut of the monies paid, so no up front investment by the retailer. 2) It works for the retailer, a proportion of claims get paid and the alternative would be to wait for the criminal courts to process a case and award compensation, I am sure your Police contacts will confirm this doesn't always mean the victim is given very much as per my remark above. 3) Very few shoplifting cases ever get as far as a criminal court, first offenders are nearly always let off with a caution no matter how much they attempted to steal, indeed it can take dozens of offences before anyone is convicted- these are career criminals anyway who see being caught as an occupational hazard and probably use CR notices as loo paper so meaningless is the threath to them. For retailers, relying on courts for compensation for something like shoplifting is like waiting for snow at christmas.

 

I am certain no serving Police officer enjoys letting people go even when faced with compelling evidence but it happens. I heard from someone who still works in retail LP recently that as few as 6% of shoplifting cases reported to the Police end up in court, now either the security people are really bad at their jobs and are making false arrests all over place, all of the time, or the criminal justice process is just not dealing with the problem at a low level. I just cannot believe that the security industry is that bad and I can believe, based on some experience, that the Police do not proceed with such cases as a matter of routine.

 

It is naive to suggest that every shoplifter apprehended by store security is totally innocent of anything unless they are convicted in a criminal court. Legally in strict terms, of the offence they were apprehended for yes, but every Policeman or woman you care to speak to can give you hundreds of incidents of perfectly good criminal cases not being proceeded because of a legal technicality or just time and resource, particularly for minor offences such as shoplifting. And, we are talking about incredibly minor offences here in the grand scheme of things. This is the uncomfortable truth.

 

Thankfully civil law can be used morally and legally to obtain financial recompense but only through strict application of guidelines to avoid the unsavoury antics of those mentioned recently.

 

Regarding the point about retailers employing security equipment and guarding, so there is no real cost incurred as they would be there anyway. Actually a good point if a little out of place on this site as it sounds like an excuse for convicted criminals to avoid perfectly good legal action and surely nobody would condone that? Retailers do not enjoy spending money on anything but stock for their stores and in any case their argument is pretty stark: If it wasn't for shoplifters they would not need to spend money on security and in the case of individual incidents put through CR (using this reasoning) they have a legal point that has been tested, albeit with convicted shoplifters as others have said on here, although I'd like to check up on that last bit.

[Guest Andropod]

I see only you understands civil recovery & of course everyone involved acts scrumptiously at all times. Either you being very disingenuous or you really don't know whats going on. I'll assume the latter

 

In case you don't understand people are being accused & being found guilty of criminal acts without the benefit of a trial & if you think a letter to the retailer telling them your innocent will do the trick your kidding yourself AND even if on the very rare occasion the retailer has agreed the demands for money will continue

 

You'll no doubt claim that if they sign a notice or accept a caution they are admitting guilt.

 

This is the scenario Victim is confronted by security & accused of criminal theft or damage they are then marched to a closed office & detained the accusations are repeated (usually more forcefully) They are threatened with the police & if the police are called they will threaten accept a FPN or be arrested handcuffed & locked in a cell Even the innocent will take the course of least resistance they'll accept the fine or even the caution if already at the nick

 

This system as used is no better than that of a kangaroo court a disgrace to fair play

 

I'm sorry Joncris but you seem to respond to every post I make with some level of personal accusation as to my motives. Your anecdotes do not bear the ring of truth and seem to be based on a general/generic hate of the Police, retailers, security guards or just anyone concerned with taking any form of action involving money or legal recourse on behalf of an organisation against an individual. You know, there are criminals out there and they do nasty or wrong things and sometimes they get away with it when they shouldn't. There are also people out there who are dishonest but wouldn't consider themselves criminals and they get away with it too, when they shouldn't. It's not about summary justice and CR is not the answer either but clearly the criminal justice system is buckling under the weight of crime and dishonesty in this country and no amount of liberalism or naivity will make that disappear. How about some healthy debate on the answers to this rather than trying to paint everything black and white and pretending that its "them vs us", "the poor little people being exploited by big corporations". When the organisations, be it government, a gas supplier, a bank or a retailer is abusing its position that is different and I am all for that but this mini debate seems to be hijacked by some kind of left wing agenda!

[kiptower]

the LAW us simple "INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY IN LAW"

 

RLP and its cronies are not the law, nor is any other security guard

 

RLP and similar outfits are there to make money , and constantly show no respect for the LAW

 

the original setup of RLP was to gain compensation after a conviction

 

now its get what you can even if it wont stand up in court,

 

and the many cases of unlawfull detention and assault by security staff, and unlawfully gaining personal details and forwarding them to RLP, by thankfully the MOJ and the Minister herself is investigating the whole [problem]

[MARTIN3030]

this mini debate seems to be hijacked by some kind of left wing agenda

 

Maybe you have forgotten that you are visiting a Consumer forum where the vast majority are not here to debate or even listen to, your theories or assertions.

The only agenda here is one that seeks restitution for our members,and an end to what has become a banana republic in security circles.

Trolls have no place in this forum.

[JonCris]

Martin more like fascists as it's they who believe in summary justice

 

For myself I'm left wing & proud of the fact. As you know I detest the concept of CR as practiced by some today

[MARTIN3030]

Yes I do know.

The diversions and distractions these trolls are trying to force on this forum will do nothing to change the stance or opinions we have.

I and all those here are tired of the same old defensives and put downs.

The quicker they realise they have no place here,the better.

They can either go and spout their tripe elsewhere voluntarily,or be moved on-its up to them to get the message.

[cjaynap]

I'm sorry Joncris but you seem to respond to every post I make with some level of personal accusation as to my motives. Your anecdotes do not bear the ring of truth and seem to be based on a general/generic hate of the Police, retailers, security guards or just anyone concerned with taking any form of action involving money or legal recourse on behalf of an organisation against an individual. You know, there are criminals out there and they do nasty or wrong things and sometimes they get away with it when they shouldn't. There are also people out there who are dishonest but wouldn't consider themselves criminals and they get away with it too, when they shouldn't. It's not about summary justice and CR is not the answer either but clearly the criminal justice system is buckling under the weight of crime and dishonesty in this country and no amount of liberalism or naivity will make that disappear. How about some healthy debate on the answers to this rather than trying to paint everything black and white and pretending that its "them vs us", "the poor little people being exploited by big corporations". When the organisations, be it government, a gas supplier, a bank or a retailer is abusing its position that is different and I am all for that but this mini debate seems to be hijacked by some kind of left wing agenda!

 

 

Andropod you stated that you are an expert and have 20 years experience of working in the security industry and with the police. You have been asked to qualify your exppertise twice in the last 4 hours and you have refused. Now you have started abusing JonCris. All the things that JonCris is claiming have been verified and can be found if you know where to look.

 

YOU ARE TOTALLY OUT OF ORDER.

 

This site is designed to help people with problems some of them are vulnerable people. I am sure there are many people out there who are very grateful for the help and advice given to them by JonCris and others. My problem with your posts is this. New people to the site my be put off from seeking help and advice from JonCris or others when you start criticising them. This problem is compounded by the fact that we have considered your expert opinion and reached the conclusion that you are no expert.

 

What are you hoping to achieve, you are not providing help or assistance just criticism. I ask in the nicest possible way that you carefully consider why you are continuing to post misinformation and why you are abusing longstanding members of the site. Your posts are not from the point of view of the consumer rather they are from the view of the retailer so what use are they to anybody on this site.

[MARTIN3030]

He is continuing to post because his reasons for being here are not the same as those of the others,thats pretty clear.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I think that 'civility to all' is the way ahead for everyone...

[MARTIN3030]

Thats the preferred option-but it can only work if there is the same thinking from all sides.

Lets put it another way-when CAGGERS tried to voice the other side of the coin on the credit today forums,they were not greeted with any civility because they were in self denial.

Thats to be expected because thats their place its what they believe in.

Equally when we have people coming here who try to undermine and disrupt these forums because they go against what CAG stands for,then in my eyes the main consideration should be the members and not the trolls.

If we cant make the distinction between accepting the need to listen to members and refute the defences thrown up in support of the state of the CP scenario,then we might as well sign RLPs papers and pay them their £187.00 and have done with it.

[JonCris]

I think that 'civility to all' is the way ahead for everyone...

 

I disagree there is no 'counter' argument (counter geddit:lol:) whoever they are they're a jerk & deserve to be treat as such

 

CR is acceptable but ONLY where it is exercised fairly against 'convicted' criminals period otherwise there is no other argument that can justify CR as practiced by some today.