Lets get together & mount a concerted campaign against RLP

[Bookworm]

INews has reached the team that there are offers of help being made by pm.I am not talking of established users of this forum-but recent ones.

I'd never have guessed.

[MARTIN3030]

How did I know you was going to say that ?

You are a very seasoned observer

[JonCris]

Lets get together & mount a concerted campaign against RLP ?

 

 

I don't see an awful lot of getting together being encouraged in this thread.

 

Yes it is - for reasons that will eventually become apparent it's just not yet on the forum:wink:

[tank-fink]

someone offered me some help via PM....a trainee lawyer....is this what you mean martin?

[WickedWolfie]

Fink-tank

 

Had the same message

[MARTIN3030]

Yes we are aware of this I can confirm.

We are also aware that we have visitors in this forum who clearly have a VERY vested interest in whats being discussed-I dont think it needs to be spelled out !

[Bookworm]

You mean that this paragon of lawfulness and high moral standards would lower themselves to spying on us? Surely not?

[JonCris]

Martin I haven't worn a vest in years:confused:

[Bookworm]

You don't want to see the mental image I just got.

[MARTIN3030]

Hmn I am stuck for words.

 

Spying is a traditional word bookie.....these days we call it something else.

In the days of Blunt and Co they were protecting national interests-these days its a bit more simple.

Although Putin was a little over protective when he paid Smokie 11 grand for a 45 minute gig in his Kremlin Pad.

Spying to me always flags up KGB......RLP have nothing in common to Vlads ancestors....with the little exception that on account of some of their activities one can be forgiven for excluding the power of Russian Vodka in a means to an end.

I think you know what I mean.

[Bookworm]

Oh... Industrial espionnage, maybe?

[shanty]

I recently had a read through the employee codes of conduct for Advantage Boots and nowhere did I find any mention of an employee being responsible for the costs of any investigation.

If the companies themselves are not aware of the full extent of whats going on-then that only leaves the security staff and RLP.

The question remains-who benefits when RLP issue a demand to victims ?

Where does the money go ?

What proportion goes to the client ?

Does any of it go to the Security staff ?

 

These are questions we need answers to.

 

This is a very pertinent post.

 

I do believe that if there ARE people in these retail establishments who care about the image of their company,they have no idea how rlp operate.Several years ago many companies got rid of their own security staff to replace them with (cheaper) contractors,and once this happened the communication broke down.Tk maxx is on of the exceptions as they employ their own security staff but have difficulty keeping them as they are a strange target-driven company (American?)

 

Where does the money go?It has struck me recently that there is so much secrecy around this issue? Why? I have a nasty suspicion ,and from what I have heard,that the retailers are allegedly getting virtually none-rlp are allegedly raking in the majority-but they are keeping it very quiet.It's very hard to find out where it goes-I hope you find out.

 

I can tell you that none of the money goes to the security staff. I can also tell you most decent security staff would be horrified that young people etc and those not found guilty were being treated in this way-most of them just fill in the form-THEN they never hear anything back again-they wouldn't know if the money had been recovered or not,or even if their was any dispute. However there is a large body of poorly trained low -paid staff in that industry-so if you pay peanuts..

 

I also know that,for example,where there is a company with several branches,the money often disappears into the coffers of the head office,it doesn't even get distributed back to the stores who issued the notices.It's all kept hush-hush,but why?

Edited April 23, 2009 by shanty

[MARTIN3030]

Yes I think without doubt your comments are a fair account.

Lets put ourselves for one moment in the seat of the Clients.

IF someone came to you and said....ok we will take care of your shoplifters,and anyone who comes into your place with intentions to rip you off....The first question you would ask is - sounds good whats the catch and how much is it gonna cost me ?

 

The next question you would ask is-whats your cred ?

RLP have quite a respectable portfolio in that most if not all of their clients are household names.

Who would question that ?

 

 

My understanding is that RLP are working on a no win no fee criteria which of course benefits the client since they dont have anything to lose.

 

For me-alarm bells first started to ring when it became obvious that the client and RLP were not in any sync.

I would go as far as to say that in many cases the client is totally oblivious to RLPs follow ups of incidents.

Hence their discord at the people they caution having any contact of redress with the store owners themselves.

 

If it were the case that this assumption was wrong,why do they insist that it is out of the hands of their clients and so you have to deal exclusively with them ?

 

If I employed a security guard to watch my house and something happened-I would want to know about it and certainly have a say.

 

I rest my case.

[JonCris]

Shanty in the main I agree - my problem is that this phenomenon has suddenly taken place so there must be a reason - we never heard of kids being detained or even accused of theft for testing mousse - what's the reason - IMHO as it always involves overzealous security staff it can only be financial otherwise what is their reward are they just being vindictive for the sake of it

[shanty]

Yes I think without doubt your comments are a fair account.

Lets put ourselves for one moment in the seat of the Clients.

IF someone came to you and said....ok we will take care of your shoplifters,and anyone who comes into your place with intentions to rip you off....The first question you would ask is - sounds good whats the catch and how much is it gonna cost me ?

 

The next question you would ask is-whats your cred ?

RLP have quite a respectable portfolio in that most if not all of their clients are household names.

Who would question that ?

 

 

My understanding is that RLP are working on a no win no fee criteria which of course benefits the client since they dont have anything to lose.

 

For me-alarm bells first started to ring when it became obvious that the client and RLP were not in any sync.

I would go as far as to say that in many cases the client is totally oblivious to RLPs follow ups of incidents.

Hence their discord at the people they caution having any contact of redress with the store owners themselves.

 

If it were the case that this assumption was wrong,why do they insist that it is out of the hands of their clients and so you have to deal exclusively with them ?

 

If I employed a security guard to watch my house and something happened-I would want to know about it and certainly have a say.

 

I rest my case.

 

If I understand what you are saying correctly,the answer is this.

 

Security issues in shops can be very problematic, because you are arresting lawbreakers,majority of them hard drug users (and generally speaking it's pointless serving civil recovery on drug addicts).Already you have ruled out collecting revenue back from the majority of your "customers",they are at least 80% of shoplifters caught i would guess,in many areas,if not much more.

 

It is easier for a store to hand over the responsibility to a contract company and say "you deal with security staff that get injured on duty","you deal with false arrest,we would rather not be associated with them,"and we can just ask for the rogue member of staff not to return to our premesis (you can't do that with your own staff that easily).

On the whole the stores just don't wat the hassle,then there are the Accountants who run these places.

 

They look at the facts "RLP,they will recover money for you,at no cost".

 

What you say about credibility,its very valid,but the Heads of these stores are told (I am assuming),"Your security staff fill in the forms,and if there is any doubt,our legal experts will "pull" the claim".

 

Of course,who wouldn't trust legal experts?

Surely they would not pursue anything unfair?

Surely they would follow the same model as the stores when dealing with potentially embarrassing situations?

 

Well,no they don't .but the stores have not woken up to that yet.

[shanty]

Shanty in the main I agree - my problem is that this phenomenon has suddenly taken place so there must be a reason - we never heard of kids being detained or even accused of theft for testing mousse - what's the reason - IMHO as it always involves overzealous security staff it can only be financial otherwise what is their reward are they just being vindictive for the sake of it

 

No,jonchris ,trust me,this has being going on for years,it just gets covered up-most people are too embarassed to complain,or kids just too afraid of what their parents will say to tell them ( as a parent,you should understand that!!)

 

I have a lot of experience in this area,and the incompetance and unprofessionalism of security staff is shocking.Some are good,but the skill is a dying art.

 

They won't be meaning to be vindictive,they are NOT vindictive,they are just so immersed in their job they forget to use common sense-in fact many don't have it.If someone is barely being paid £6 an hour,and joins a company( being told they will " get training ",)but gets "on-the -job training " ,ie no training,and has to deal with people threatening them with syringes,maybe knives,and their company doesn't even bother to advise them they should get a vaccination for hepitits,because their job is risky.......£6 an hour max...... 48 maybe 60 hours a week-would you do it?

 

The job can be very boring if you are incompetant,so they seize on any opportunity because they are not capable of catching real criminals.

 

Also,when people don't know the law,they can be scared they will get a criminal record,so don't dare to question what they see as "Authority".It makes me mad though.I hate unfairness.I wish companies would take security seriously.but it is the "poor relation".

 

Some of these complaints are as we know from people who have been shoplifting and ARE professional thieves and are looking to get out of paying money to RLP,and I personally have changed my attitude to this. If what RLp are doing is not legal-they NEED to be stopped.That does not change the fact that people who steal can be vicious, violent,lie,cheat,play the "race" card,play the "old " card",play the "pregnant" " ill" " "disabled" or etc etc.On the internet they appear so innocent.Many people who steal do so for a reason-gambling,alcohol,drugs,a few ,very few for illness,and several mitigating circumstances spring to mind, generally,they are incredibly devious people.There are mistakes,and very many incompetant security staff.

Edited April 24, 2009 by shanty

[JonCris]

If I understand what you are saying correctly,the answer is this.

 

Security issues in shops can be very problematic, because you are arresting lawbreakers,majority of them hard drug users (and generally speaking it's pointless serving civil recovery on drug addicts).Already you have ruled out collecting revenue back from the majority of your "customers",they are at least 80% of shoplifters caught i would guess,in many areas,if not much more.

 

It is easier for a store to hand over the responsibility to a contract company and say "you deal with security staff that get injured on duty","you deal with false arrest,we would rather not be associated with them,"and we can just ask for the rogue member of staff not to return to our premesis (you can't do that with your own staff that easily).

On the whole the stores just don't wat the hassle,then there are the Accountants who run these places.

 

They look at the facts "RLP,they will recover money for you,at no cost".

 

What you say about credibility,its very valid,but the Heads of these stores are told (I am assuming),"Your security staff fill in the forms,and if there is any doubt,our legal experts will "pull" the claim".

 

Of course,who wouldn't trust legal experts?

Surely they would not pursue anything unfair?

Surely they would follow the same model as the stores when dealing with potentially embarrassing situations?

 

Well,no they don't .but the stores have not woken up to that yet.

 

Again I'm not saying your wrong 'the manager doesn't know' but don't these managers read the papers - aren't these managers contacted by the press as in the case of the 14 year old which made the press - or the case of the 16 year old who's story also made the press:confused:

[shanty]

I didn't hear about these cases from the press,so why should they?

 

Even if they did,they would just assume it was a one-off,which had nothing to do with them.

[JonCris]

Because they were contacted for comment BEFORE the stories were printed so obviously knew at some point what was being done in their firms name