Don't believe me?

Hear it for yourself

[video=youtube;LibdhY-ARlo]

Their clients apparently include Boots, TKMax, Tescos, ASDA

Why don't people tweet their press offices the URL of this video

Here is a CAG short url which you can use and which takes you to this thread

Whoops, the url has autolinked . You will have to take out the word "icon" when you paste it in

I've enlarged it.

Free Speech

 

Playing Schilly buggers

 

Retail Loss Prevention Ltd, which is accused of running and unfair parallel justice system on behalf of high street retailers in which teenage and mentally ill petty shop lifters have faced inflated civil compensation demands (see Eyes 1303 & 1314) is taking equally over-the-top measures to try to stifle criticism of the practice.

 

The firm, which acts for Primark, Iceland, Asda, Boots, Debenhams, Tesco and TK Maxx, has hired London law firm Schillings not only to protect it from defamation and “malicious falsehood” but also apparently from criminal harassment – a novel way to stifle free speech say experts.

 

Apparently stung by a defeat in the county court (Eye 1314), RLP has instructed Schillings to send threatening letters to the Citizen Advice Bureau, the Consumer Action Group and another consumer forum, Legal seagulls, demanding that “harassing and defamatory” posts on their websites be removed and that they hand over ID details or internet service provider addresses of those posting on the forums – or face legal action.

 

Schillings has even threatened the London law firm which acted free of charge for one of two teenage girls who successfully fought off what is believed to be the first fully contested RLP – led claim to go before a court. It is demanding that Bates, Bells and Braithwaite (BW) remove from its website the news report of the Oxford court victory of the girls, in which it says the judgment “deals a potentially fatal blow to the practice of ‘civil recovery’”

.

BWB is understood to have issued a robust response and kept the item up, with a notice that it is subject to legal dispute. The impoverished but highly popular free consumer forums are also adamant they will not bow to pressure, other than to moderate excessive or gratuitous postings. They believe their popularity with consumers (CAG has more than 322,000 members) will bring Nottingham – based RLP and its lawyers to their senses.

 

Curiously, one CAG “thread” complained about by Schillings was actually started by someone who gave the impression that an RLP demand on behalf of TK Maxx meant that the game was up and payment should be made “jonny46” later posted a court document to prove that RL and high street traders were prepared to litigate – a court acknowledgement confirming: “Your claim was issued....” That would suggest it came from the claimants or those acting for them, so the ISP address of “jonny46” would make an interesting side show if Schillings followed through with its threats.

 

Those pressing for a “public interest defence” to enable scientists, NGOs and consumer groups to debate issues in good faith are also raising the case in the Commons this week – a spectacular own goal!

Very interesting.

It is being claimed that RLP have suffered substantial losses as a result of the alleged defamation,I wonder how they can substantiate this ?

No doubt they've another Matrix & will also be referring to the Magna Carta.

Very interesting.

It is being claimed that RLP have suffered substantial losses as a result of the alleged defamation,I wonder how they can substantiate this ?

Of course, if the Eye gets in on the act, that will multiply exponentially the number of people who were not aware of their rack... business model and who will do so now.

Ain't Karma a b*tch?

Not 100% certain but I think its been suggested the retailers only get about 30% of anything collected.

But lets not forget there is another less obvious benefit in the process,additional data for their other business.

http://www.integrityscreening.co.uk/about.html

So, reporting a court case that has happened, is now "defamation"? I would like to see a libel court judges face if this came before one.

It occurs to me that, If Mr Dunstan from CAB has not committed libel/defamation/harassment, then in fact Schillings have just committed extremely serious and vindictive Defemation and Harasassment themselves.

They have contacted 3rd parties and massively slurred Mr Dunstan, to the point of accusing him of being a "Ring Leader" and I think the CAB should not let this lie, but take action themselves against Schillings. This is a serious and epic attack against the defenders of consumer rights.

CAB official accused of harassment by civil recovery firm

A company that sues shoplifters on behalf of retailers has accused a Citizens Advice Bureau official of organising a campaign of harassment against it.

The firm, Retail Loss Prevention (RLP), has also threatened legal action against several consumer websites because of comments on their forums.

It wants to uncover the identity of internet critics who have called for the company's business to be disrupted.

The CAB official denies the accusation.

RLP has accused its critics of trying to damage its business in a "vindictive" campaign.

In particular it has accused a national official of the CAB, Richard Dunstan, of "orchestrating" a three-year long "sustained campaign of harassment and defamation" against it and its staff.

He is the CAB's policy officer dealing with the civil recovery industry and denies the accusations.

"I don't plead guilty to either harassment or defamation, and would warmly welcome a police investigation." Mr Dunstan told the BBC.

"The accusation is simply ludicrous - there is no way I could single-handedly launch an internet campaign against them.

"What RLP wants is to shut down reporting and discussion of a disastrous ruling in court in April," he added.

Read more:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18595023

Not 100% certain but I think its been suggested the retailers only get about 30% of anything collected.

 

Let's not forget that the number of people who pay is actually quite low compared to the number of invoices issued, and that the number of cases actually taken to court is very much smaller than that.

RLP's business is based upon convincing the people it sends invoices to that court action will result from failure to pay. That myth has been well and truly exploded. I do not imagine that anyone took seriously all their bull about crime prevention - after all, without crime they'd have no business.

It would indeed be interesting to see how RLP can quantify its supposed losses. Does this mean that retailers have finally woken up to the reputational damage their links with RLP can result in?

CAB official accused of harassment by civil recovery firm

 

 

 

A company that sues shoplifters on behalf of retailers has accused a Citizens Advice Bureau official of organising a campaign of harassment against it.

 

I do wish the BBC would try to report accurately. RLP has never sued a shoplifter.

I'm surprised the 'Royal Historical Society' aren't up in arms over their use of the 'Magna Carta'

Whilst I do not think that anyone at all should be making death threats toward La Lambert (or indeed anyone else, no matter how notorious or unsavoury), there is a certain irony in the fact that she appears to have immediately recognised that the police and criminal justice system are the correct authorities to deal with allegations of criminal offences.

It occurs to me that, If Mr Dunstan from CAB has not committed libel/defamation/harassment, then in fact Schillings have just committed extremely serious and vindictive Defemation and Harasassment themselves.

 

They have contacted 3rd parties and massively slurred Mr Dunstan, to the point of accusing him of being a "Ring Leader" and I think the CAB should not let this lie, but take action themselves against Schillings. This is a serious and epic attack against the defenders of consumer rights.

I think that must be true

I just love the way the schpiel on company websites so often comes back to bite them on the a*se.

From Schilling's 'Corporate Reputation Protection' webpage:

Today most corporate clients prefer us to work with them under the radar and without publicity, using the law to protect reputations without drawing attention to the issue.

FAIL!!

And there's more:

Deciding an appropriate response requires legal skill and experience: in reality most threats can be ignored and it does more harm than good to counter them. Arousing additional interest in information previously known only to a few is counter-productive.

http://www.schillings.co.uk/services/business-and-entrepreneurs/defamation-libel-and-slander/

If only they'd listened to their own advice!!

the speed at which news appears and is shared online, can make the effects of an incorrect story devastating

but equally can make the effects of a correct story even more devastating.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18595023

One risk of failing to take appropriate action is that the story may be repeated in the future.

Another risk is taking inappropriate action so that the story may be repeated in the future, .......again and again and again

I just love the way the schpiel on company websites so often comes back to bite them on the a*se.

 

From Schilling's 'Corporate Reputation Protection' webpage:

 

http://www.schillings.co.uk/services/business-and-entrepreneurs/corporate-reputation-protection/

 

FAIL!!

Hilarious. Well spotted!!!!!

I'm sure that Boots, Debenhams, Tescos, Asda, Primark, ASDA will be very pleased as well to know that Jackie's ill-judged attack on us has protected their reputations.

Actually they protect their own reputations because according the Mr Shane they hide behind RLP.

A pity that RLP seem to have forgotten that they are trustees of their clients' good reputation. By beginning this crusade - and also this extrordinary campaign against Richard Dunstan, they have effectively placed the reputation of all of their clients in the public view.

If I was a client of RLP, I would be taking my business elsewhere - or else coming to my senses altogether and not getting involved in RLP's racket business.

Another risk is taking inappropriate action so that the story may be repeated in the future

I do get the feeling someone at RLP has pressed the self-destruct button.