Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

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
  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
  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 retail
  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
  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 ho
  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
  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 an
  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
  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?
  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 ret
  • Create New...