Jump to content

gtingo18

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About gtingo18

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Forgive the grammatical error, predictive text taking over
  2. Have there been many other instances where rlp have lost the case through a retailer other than the Oxford? Just wondered as to refer to them as illegal mercenaries and all the other slurs, if it's isn't true that over 99% of juddges have ruled in their favour? There may not be well publicised cases in recent times, but in the company I worked for at the start of 2013, in March, a member of staff was successful taken to court by CRS, following dismissal due to refund fraud.
  3. http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/court%20cases.aspx I have read the Oxford case. Interesting to see how on many occasions the judge feels that the morally correct side is with the retailer, and it is the shaky legal side that is the problem. I googled the Oxford case and got the above link. Worth a look if it hasn't been seen already, I'm in no doubt there will be more up to date information than that now however
  4. A witness ranges from in store staff or management, to other security in town, council security, pcsos, police etc. But the best witness us audio cctv, people banging themselves to rights. This is important as while there are genuine cases, there are so many disgusting liars out there who will fabricate stories of serious family illnesses, I'll children, post natal depression, and other instances. Does it not seem strange that in so many instances there is an excuse that something is going wrong in their personal life or with their health. I ask you all this, we've all suffered from bad experiences in our lives, losing loved ones, stress, concerns, it happens. Do we all go out shoplifting as a result? No! It's no excuse. There are genuine cases out there and people I really have felt for. A number of years ago I befriended a man I detained that had been made homeless due to a gambling addiction. He was one of the nicest guys I'd ever met and was desperate and hungry. He was in his fifties, a religious man who cared for his older brother and then slept out in the open air so not to be a burden. Do you think I served cr on him? Of course not. I bought him some lunch, a cheap mobile phone, and arranged for a member of the council to see him and provide help. He is now in his own house, and we meet up once a week and I take him for breakfast and a chat. Should I have removed my personal 'judgement' from that instance, and just called police and left him to it? I have had so many letters sent to head offices from people I have detained thanking me for the way I have treated them, and for listening to them. There are people who are vulnerable, mentally unwell, have genuine problems in life and I sympathise wholeheartedly. Is it an excuse to shoplift? No, but sometimes there are factors where I will accept a mistake has been made. This comes from time and experience. Dealing with thousands of different people, not scouring the internet looking for quotes trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about. People have problems, and for that there should be common sense and understanding. People who come on forums like this, and lie like in other threads about personal trauma to exact sympathy and advice to make themselves feel better, should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, I'm sure you all believe every single sob story you here. Silverfox, unfortunately I am genuinely unaware of how rlp breaks down the individual charge brackets. I know as you put above how it breaks down, but the costs incurred by an individual are between themselves and rlp. I will not start looking it up on the internet and then pretending I know, as there are people who clearly do that better than me. As for detaining minors, part correct, part wrong. They cannot be interviewed without an appropriate adult present, that is fact. The fact they cannot be detained however is complete rubbish. However once detained they are in your care, and if you release them and they are injured on the way home you are responsible. They can be barred, but only in the witness of a police officer or parent, (for under 16, not 18). They are then only to be released to a parent, a d if they won't attend then police collect and take them home, or to the station. It is always best to have a witness, however audio footage is always suitable. I did read on another thread yesterday a comment from a woman stating, 'I'm a 60+ year old female, if I refused to return to a store would you forcibly drag me in.' For the record a 65 year old would be exempt from civil recovery in most companies, but from detention? No. Should the above female be forcibly detained if she refuses to return following shoplifting? Absolutely, you don't get to a certain age where you can expect to get away with what you want. You are no better than a 19 year old doing the same thing.
  5. Sabresheep, maybe there is one point admittedly I have not made clear, so shall attempt to do so. For an offender to be dealt with at 'store level' with cr served and no police involvement. With more and more companies following the standard set by t.k.maxx and getting audio in offices, my company now included, we are more covered than ever in our actions. If an offender is denying intent, police are called to view cctv. Over 99% of the time intent is always admitted once police have viewed cctv. If an offender is fully accepting of the offence they have committed then it's dealt with in house via civil recovery. The incident itself, plus the dialogue while detained is burnt to disk as evidence and can be provided to rlp/head office/any other body entitled by data protection. So can I clarify you feel people who have fully admitted theft, people who have clearly clocked cameras, defeated security tags, made a run for it, are the sort of people who warrant your staunch defence? Do not forget there are people a lot higher up than me, and also the guys in my team that make decisions to use rlp. We are simply following company policy. So as I say, a lack of any on the job experience and trolling through internet pages looking for links to copy and paste, will not convince me you know what you are talking about. Even if companies were found to be liable, it would be the business itself that were found guilty, not the employees.
  6. Silverfox, do you accept that suggesting a security guard cannot forcibly detain somebody is a foolish thing to say, and at least in this instance your knowledge is limited? If that were the case every retailer would go out of business and turn into a crime den. Why? Because all an offender would have to do is dress in black, wear a balaclava, grab as they please and run. If they can't be apprehended by security, then what chance do the police have of identifying someone on cctv that cannot be seen? This really does appear to me to be basics. Now, this is where it is up to the retailers to put responsible people in charge of recruitment. Otherwise Yes you can end up with thugs that detain and hurt people. But let us not forget a lot of these thugs are the police officers themselves. I've seen more shoplifters slapped, punched and injured at the hands of the police than I have at the hands of security.
  7. Rebel, your copy and pasting is very selective. You failed to include the part stating I always involve police when a theft has been seen by eye. Silverfox, I have detained hundreds of under 18s. In this instance always with a witness, and they cannot be released unless either to police or to a parent. Yes I have served notices of cr, but never making a customer sign it. I am not asking their permission to serve it on them, I am doing so irrelevantly and informing them of this. For the record I spoke to a friend of mine today in the police force over lunch about some of the comments I've had, comments he likes to refer to as 'the nanny state.' I'd agree in many instances with that. He also made two valid points, firstly if a court should always determine the outcome, then you are saying he is equally as incapable of making a decision as I would be. Secondly, the majority of people are in no position to pass judgement unless you have actively been involved in a job in security, lp, police. Renegade, I can assure you when I was a security guard I was considered very good at my job, by people whose opinions matter. I did for a few years harbour an ambition to join the police or fire service, but through my progressive career starting in security it would now mean taking a significant pay cut. Sabresheep, you come across as very bitter, would be interesting to know why? If any of my security staff were hit with any kind of legal punishment I would pay the costs myself, that's how confident I am that it won't happen. Rlp closes, it closes. No big deal to me, it doesn't change how shoplifters or stores will operate other than that. A greater strain would just be placed on the criminal courts, but so be it. None of you like the fact that the police back my viewpoint in almost every instance, and nearly all security enjoy a great working relationship in my experience with their local police force. We work together as a team, and they will always find out what action the store wants taking first. Why? Because I can almost guarantee if a store is not pushing for arrest, and an offender has a fixed abode, but the store just wants the details confirming for civil recovery, the police will do it. They will be more than happy to. I've been reading a lot of threads on here. Amusing to hear how everybody is innocent and made a genuine mistake. For reasons I won't go in to, I could point out at least three cases where the op is lying as the company they mentioned do not operate in the ways suggested, in any case, as that organisation need certain criteria to be able to process a case to the cps, which for obvious reasons I won't elaborate on. I am not a shoplifter, therefore have never made that 'honest mistake.' Neither has my partner, my family, her family or anyone I know. The amount of times people believe these accidents occur is incredible.
  8. If rlp was ever found to be totally unlawful, it would be closed down. If that happened, then I would not vindicate the practices. Until then I do not accept they are unlawful in the mainstream. Individual cases are different in each instance
  9. As I am short on time I will just issue one reply briefly until my next opportunity. You can be forcibly detained by security, and if you refused to return that is what would happen. It is not assault, I cannot believe that suggestion has even been made. Why do you think stores have holding areas monitored by cctv. I've detained more people than I care to remember with the high and mighty 'you can't touch me, I know my rights' attitude. The moral high ground from a thief, amusing eh. They are guided back in, forcefully if necessary, and any resistance is met with reasonable force. The holding room in a responsible company will be on cctv. I suppose all the hundreds of police officers I have ever dealt with when I have had people in restraint holds, I occasionally on the ground if they are aggressive, must have been unaware of this law too as I was never once accused of assault. By the offender? Many times as they are .misguided. By the police, never. So I'm sure therefore you are more than happy in this instance also to accept the judgement of the police, so not to be hypocritical........
  10. Could you please clarify what you are referring to as unlawful? Is it the practices of rlp in general, or one particular aspect of their operations. I can assure anyone that I have no ties to rlp whatsoever. I actually have spent a lot more time using crs, similar but give more money to the retailer. I am surprised rlp kept as many businesses as they did when they were beaten for price by a direct rival doing the same service. I do agree that it would be great in an ideal world for retailers to claim through the civil process themselves. However we all know that would be far too time consuming. As an earlier post quite rightly said, the police fixed penalty system is a fantastic idea. The 100% police referral a lot of you are pining for though is NOT what police forces want from us. Top police officers sit down with senior executives of businesses and agree price points to which it is acceptable to refer to the police. In my old company, my boss, having been dragged to a meeting with the inspector due to a police gripe about attending shoplifting jobs, arrived at a figure with him to which we would deal in house. Penalty fines are a deterrent, they work. My issue is with rj. If all I wanted was an apology I wouldn't need a police officer for that. I've had staff theft for 400 pound and when police were called he made him say sorry and that was it. In that instance if it wasn't for civil recovery it would have gone completely unpunished. I spoke to the local sergeant, who completely agreed the leniancy was stupid, but claimed that's how modern policing has gone.
  11. As for mental health problems, rlp will not pursue anybody with a mental illness, it is part of their job to establish that. They ask us at store level if they had any issues we know of, and we would only know if they'd disclosed that.
  12. To suggest that unless an offence went to trial, I am unable to say the detention was correct is certainly a misinformed point of view. I am well aware of knowing whether or not I have the proof I require to make a stop, without a court or police officer confirming that for me. If an offender is captured on cctv to select an item clearly belonging to the store, conceal it or even just hold it, and elect to leave the store with it in their possession offering no attempt to pay, they are at that point in a position to be detained. Cctv is then burnt to disk and retained as evidence, so that if a thief attempts to play the card they have been wrongfully stopped, evidence is there to the contrary. In an instance where I have witnessed it first hand, and not on cameras, I've always involved police so that the admission is witnessed by an officer. For it to be recognised as a criminal offence and recorded as such, yes trial is necessary. Police referral however, whether people like it or not is at the stores discretion. Don't forget if people feel they have been wrongfully stopped, they have every opportunity to inform the police/head office. My argument is I'd never be in a position where I did not have factual evidence to support my evidence. As the old saying goes, cctv can't lie! As for being judge and jury, as I've stated, like it or not the majority of shoplifting is dealt with in house. There is not a police force in the country that would want that to change, they regularly complain royally if they've been called to a store regularly for shoplifting. While civil recovery is in place, it is the option of the business, represented in most cases by security, to decide whether or not to serve it. Would I serve it on a young mother with nappies? No as it would damage the company image, and is also wrong in the instance. Would I serve it on a person in full time employment that just fancied a new jacket and didn't want to pay? Absolutely, with every right to make that business decision. This is not opinion, this is fact, I can't help if some people don't like it. Police are great in the main, however they themselves will send shoplifters to court as a last resort. As old Bill stated earlier, the courts get clogged up with petty crimes. These are crimes that most police officers are extremely grateful to see dealt with at store level, and are happy that their only involvement is to confirm an offenders details for civil recovery and banning notices.
  13. I will try and reply to all, but will start with this one. No I never falsely detained anyone in all my years. I started at 18 as a security officer, I then became a store detective, a profit protection manager, then changed companies and jobs, which I cannot mention on internet forums due to company policy. I am certainly not a security guard that gets excited by a bit of authority, to reply to one previous post. As for false arrests, I think they are irresponsible, completely unacceptable and that companies should be liable to pay compensation that greatly exceeds a civil recovery charge in every instance. A thorough investigation should also be launched into the person responsible, with dismissal not ruled out. I also don't think using rlp is always appropriate, there are many instances for many different reason I have chosen not to down the years. I also speak to all shoplifters with decency and respect, and can't stand when I see people doing otherwise. I will never accept in the case of shoplifting that deterring beats detaining. People have jobs to do, they don't have the time to spend their whole say deterring unless a uniformed officer. The scenario is simple. Offender gets caught in one store, police take to the cells, no more offending at least on that day. Offender gets deterred, then in the next shop, then gets away with 500 pounds worth of stock from the next place. Some offenders can be deterred, most can't. There are some that even don't get deterred when arrested. But companies spend millions on deterrent equipment such as cctv, tags, eas barriers, clam shells, loop alarms, security signage etc. If someone still decides to steal, they deserve to be caught.
  14. Hi rebel, thanks for the reply. In response: Are you saying therefore that every single shoplifting offence needs to go through the criminal courts in order to be recognised as an actual crime? Is the point where an offender is informed of civil recovery at the point of detention, informed of the costs at the point of detention, (companies have access to the price points of which civil fines alter), and them having fully admitted the theft they have just committed, not an effective way of resolving this issue without burdening the taxpayer with expensive court cases? I think you are missing the point that 99% of people would prefer this option to being in a criminal court. That is a statement I have years of experience to make Of course shoplifters have rights to a fair justice system. The fact of the matter is, they don't want it! The reason I mentioned people in a job was not a dig at people's personal circumstances, but relevant to the point. Would someone keep their job if they were outed as a convicted shoplifter? Highly unlikely. Would they rather avoid the criminal record and pay the money to civil recovery? I cannot begin to tell you how many people thanked me for offering them this option. In these cases a civil fine they can deal with, a conviction ruins their life. Surely you don't believe that shoplifters who are banged to rights on cctv will get away with it? I have gone to court personally with no cctv evidence, relying entirely on what I saw against the word of the offender. Her solicitor tried to make the case that her client had come in the store with the stolen items and that they were her property. I had no evidence to counter this other than my witness statement and recollection, yet despite this I won the case purely as my expertise in this one area of the law was sufficient to see my case defeat the lies concocted by the defence. So in that instance alone you cannot preach the justice system without acknowledging it is equally flawed. That offender with the aid of a solicitor could have easily lied their way out of the situation and walked out innocent had I been less experienced. So an innocent verdict for a guilty shoplifter, is that justice? I had data for the whole of the UK for my company, which has nearly 400 stores across the UK. You are completely correct also that police are the first to complain when there are cuts. But believe me there are police officers posting on here who would be quick to complain if we involved them for every single shoplifting incident, yet also complain by us taking civil action. Shall we welcome offenders in with open arms? Some police love you to deter, which incidentally is loved equally by the offenders themselves as they dodge a bullet. Police know they will only go round the corner and rob someone else, but that is fine as they won't have to deal with it. I remember a police officer ranting at me for allowing them to steal it on camera, and not going out and deterring them as she doesn't want us to create crime, (or more accurately, compromise their performance figures). Yet when she saw I dealt with 85% in house, it was amazing to see how she suddenly completely accepted the way I did my job. The justice system simply could not handle having to deal with every shoplifting incident, this is a fact.
  15. Old Bill, to reply in brief. Firstly, the 'long suffering consumer' in the context of this conversation is the one that chooses not to pay, therefore any martyrdom in this instance is grossly misplaced. Secondly, I do not have a degree in advanced mathematics, yet the impact of billions of pounds of shrink on the profitability of a business, caused by shop theft, I believe speaks for itself. What does a business do when profitability is compromised? Make cutbacks! You've mentioned parliament, so look up government statistics on national shoplifting figures. Thirdly, what the retailer has the legal right to do. Well once SCONE has been established on cctv, they have the right to detain an offender, forcefully if that offender refuses to return to the store. If they are assaulted by an offender, they have the right to defend themselves. Once detained, if the offender is a minor, parents or police must attend to deal with. Police should also always be called in the case of a vulnerable person. However for the vast majority, having detained over 1000 shoplifters in my previous years, it was always my choice to involve the police or not, my choice to ban the offender or not, (if I believed it was a genuine mistake, and you know with experience, I would not) and my choice via the company to serve civil recovery or not. If a person had no id, was violent or uncooperative I involved police. Fourthly, I agree fully that people who prosecute for petty offences such as 0.65p are lacking in common sense. I am appealing for a bit of common sense. I never once wrongfully detained anybody, and I would be prepared to bet that considerably less than 1% of people are innocent after being detained, particularly if all elements of proof have been captured. In the main the police force I dealt with were great. Most officers would go on standby for me outside the store, and wait for an offender to leave to make the stop. This is unequivocally the correct way to deal with offenders, to determine is simply to postpone. Generally speaking they would then ask me what I wanted doing, and I would normally say whatever is easiest for them. You would get the odd awkward officer that loves the RJ system and believes an apology is sufficient, but thankfully that level of incompetence was very few and far-between. There is also the officers that feel they have the right to withhold an offenders details believing security/loss prevention have no right to this information. Wrong again! Rlp simply provided us with a letter quoting the data protection act, which in the past I have hand delivered to an inspector to obtain details, following a sergeant deciding to back his officer. The details and an apology were swiftly forthcoming. So in short, the police like to also make their own rules from time to time. Nobody is perfect, certainly not rlp, and there are security out there who do behave in a deplorable way. However in the case of personal debt, I appreciate people warrant all the advice. But in the instance of avoiding civil punishment for shoplifting, I feel this is sending out the wrong message. Rlp are also quick to state it is civil action, not a penalty fine.
×
×
  • Create New...