Help with RLP

[ScarletPimpernel]

Some of RLP's standard letters ask for a defence to be submitted to them, even though no claim has been issued.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Hi, 2 grumpy, I think your information about going to court is out of date. I've also received court papers about a shoplifting in TK Maxx and the amount they are now claiming is the original £137.50 plus £80 court fees and £35 solicitor fees, so the bill is now £252.50. I looked on RLP's website and they show the cases they have taken to court recently. I don't know what to do now because one person has to pay £1900.00. I wish i'd paid the £137.50 now. I don't know what to do either

 

1. The cases RLP took to court - and there are very, very few of them - all relate to employee theft.

 

2. Post up the court papers so we can see them.

[ScarletPimpernel]

RLP are currently claiming to have taken several cases to court recently, and make much of it on their website. Unhelpfully, they fail to give case numbers so they can't be checked for veracity - and RLP have form for stretching the truth and being very selective with how much they say - as in the way they claimed that ACPO & the PSNI worked with them or endorsed what they did. They had to remove the statements.

 

Looking at the cases 8 cases RLP say they were involved with, 2 involve the same defendant, and appear not to have been defended; 1 is definitely an undefended default judgment; 2 weren't decided in court, three concerned fraud/theft by employees. In some of the cases the defendants had been convicted in criminal court. In no case did RLP issue the claim. They do not give details of how many cases were defended and lost by their clients.

 

RLP's motivation is almost certainly the damage that was done to their business by CAB revealing that they very, very rarely went to court, though their entire business is built upon threatening court action. They still rely largely on scaring people into paying their speculative invoices, just as in this case.

[ScarletPimpernel]

There appear to be a few recent RLP threads on CAG that smell fishy to me (and Im not talking about the contents of Bladricks apple crumble )

 

Desperate people sometimes do desperate things.

 

I cannot help but wonder why RLP have failed to list the case numbers so that their claims can be verified. It would also be interesting to know who the claimants were - it couldn't be RLP as they have no cause of action. I cannot imagine that any retailer would find any good publicity in cases where people have been accused of wrongdoing but not convicted by a proper court, and subsequently bullied into paying money.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I've just checked, and RLP's website clearly states: "RLP have recently taken a number of cases to court..."

 

Given that RLP have no cause of action, as I mentioned earlier, which means that the retailer is the claimant, I wonder on what basis RLP are claiming to have taken the cases to court?

[ScarletPimpernel]

I'm still waiting to hear how RLP have taken cases to court, as they explicitly state on their website, when the claimant in the cases they refer to is the retailer. What was RLP's role in the litigation?

 

In light of the Law Commission's recent statement on the dubious nature of the methods used by RLP and others, and given that RLP has at least two solicitors, one of whom is a director, I wonder what the SRA's view is?

[ScarletPimpernel]

Where does it say RLP is dubious? I have read the report. It doesnt say that. You lot really got it in for RLP. Whats the lowdown? Am I missing something? Their website says that damages checked by courts. That CAB man says they werent. How does he know this? Dont think RLP would say that if not true. The Court could confirm. Aren't Judgments and stuff available to the public?CAB says 10,000 cases, then 15,000 cases. RLP says few hundred. CAB says it only knows of one case, but RLP has a case about another one where she had to pay costs cos of CAB advice. Dont know who to believe.Has anyone done a Freedom of Information Act request?

 

If you look in a dictionary you will see that dubious is a word used to describe something that is questionable or doubtful. The Law Commission report questions the legal basis for RLP's claims; furthermore, it is my opinion that some of RLP's aggressive methods are also questionable, so dubious is an appropriate word. However, it's just an opinion, so feel free to dislike or disagree with it; it matters not a jot. One of the joys of our society is that everyone is entitled to express their opinion, and unlike a barrister's, mine is free.

 

Are you missing something? I think this is extremely likely, but good manners dictate that I should not go into detail.

 

Have 'us lot' got it in for RLP? I can only speak for myself, and I wouldn't say I've 'got it in' for RLP. I certainly find the premise upon which their operation is based and the methods they use to be deeply unsavoury and morally repugnant. I believe that there is no place in a civilised society for self-appointed vigilantes, be they PIRA 'punishment gangs', or companies that set themselves up, purely for profit, as an alternative to the criminal justice system. RLP regularly accuse innocent people of wrongdoing, simply in order to generate profit for themselves, and they rely upon peoples' ignorance of their rights and aggressive letters to bully people into paying them. However, the only ways I personally seek to have an effect upon them is by advising people here, and by not shopping at retailers that I know utilise RLP.

 

As to whether RLP would say something on their website that isn't true, I couldn't possibly comment, though I do recall that the PSNI and ACPO made them take some inaccurate information off their website in the past - and that they were mentioning a company as a client that hadn't used them for some time. People will no doubt draw their own conclusions.

 

As to the court cases, they are recorded, but without the case number it would be impossible to find them. RLP are doubtless aware of this, which is why they haven't bothered to provide any meaningful detail with the very few selective cases they are crowing about. An FOI request would not be of any use, as I do not see how the information could be retrieved within the constraints of the FOI Act.

 

Who to believe - only you can decide. Anyway, we are still waiting for the court forms to be posted up, and to discover how, when they are not the claimant, RLP can say that they have taken cases to court.

 

Oh yes - to answer the question you raised in an earlier post - I won't be out shoplifting this weekend. I'll be on duty, helping to make sure that everyone, including those who insult me, like you, and even RLP, can enjoy the freedoms earned by people like me.

[ScarletPimpernel]

RLP are most definately not a debt collection agency. We know this because:

 

- they do not collect debts

- the OFT agreed that their activities did not meet the requirements for a consumer credit licence. Debt collection is a licenceable activity

 

In fact, RLP's activity is far simpler than that of a debt collector. RLP send out demands for money to people whose names have been supplied to them by other companies, in the hope that the recipient will pay them. RLP call these demands 'claims for damages' (although the Law Commission thinks that the legal basis for this is questionable); other people call them speculative invoices.

[ScarletPimpernel]

My solicitor told me he sent me the papers on Fri, so they should be here by tomorrow at the latest.

 

 

 

...and still we wait.

 

Do let us know if you are having trouble with scanning the court papers.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I'm just worried that poor old Jonny46 has been given some extremely duff advice by a solicitor and will be tricked into paying money that he doesn't need to.

 

I shouldn't be at all surprised to find that a duff solicitor is involved somewhere.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Dont know why you want continue to insult people who ask questions you dont like. You clearly have not seen the website lately. they are still involved with ACPO and also the National Business Crime Forum. That is a Parliamentary group. why would they say that if it wasnt true? and i ask again, why would all the big shops use them? they must have their own legal departments and advisersYour research looks like a waste of time to me. I only have an A level in law, and even I can see that your comments are all wrong. It doesnt matter that a case related to a flood or whatever. The same principles for claiming damages in tort apply whether it was negligence for a flood, a trespass, nuicance or conversion (which in case you dont know, theft is a conversion, shoplifting is theft so shoplifting is conversion). somebody who gets hurt in RTA is also different from a shoplifter, but they still can claim damages.It doesnt matter how old a case is. the law is the law. Of course a guard is disrupted from his job when he is arresting shoplifters and removing them and waiting for police and doing all the paperwork, and whatever else they have to do. Who is guarding the shop floor, protecting staff and customers and property when they are doing that. I got my wallett knicked in a shop once. probably wouldnt have happened if a security guard was there. bet he was writing forms in the office somewhere about a shoplifter.i dont get why you are going to all these lengths to defend shoplifters. i dont wanna pay extra on goods. I dont wanna be robbed in a shop. I dont want my aunty who works in a shop being hurt by a shoplifter. If my granny is attacked in the street, i dont want the police to be unable to come to the scene cos they are at tesco slapping the wrist of a shoplifter. i asked before what am i missing here?

 

 

I presume that your post is aimed at me, though you do not make it clear and do not appear to have fully got to grips with the complexities of the 'quote' button, or indeed, as pointed out above, paragraphs, spelling or grammar.

 

You also appear to be confused on some other points:

 

- It is a matter of fact that ACPO and PSNI required RLP to remove information from their website which could have misled readers into thinking that RLP's activities were approved or endorsed by them. It does not appear that either PSNI or ACPO had consented to the information being used in that way, though since you seem to be so well informed about RLP you will no doubt correct me if I am wrong.

 

- being 'involved with ACPO' means nothing. In particular, it doesn't mean that ACPO endorses RLP, which is the meaning I'm sure they would like to be attached. I have been in correspondence with ACPO, so I've been involved with them too; does that mean they will approve if I send you a speculative invoice? (note: rhetorical question)

 

- the National Business Crime Forum is not a Parliamentary group; that is a matter of fact. On their website, the NBCF says 'The National Business Crime Forum supports the work of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Retail and Business Crime.' Supporting an organisation is not the same as being part of it, nor does it mean that that organisation endorses or encourages the supporter.

 

- you say that all the big shops use RLP (or is it civil recovery - your circumloquacious post seems to switch between the general and the specific). This is patently and risibly untrue, and I can prove it easily; there are several big shops near to where I work, and none of them use either RLP or civil recovery. The fact is that few large retailers in the UK and US utilise civil recovery; even fewer employ the 'services' of RLP. I know, because I've been there, that civil recovery is not used in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Iraq, or Afghanistan, in all of which locations there are big shops, but I cannot speak to the situation elsewhere. However, I think the evidence speaks for itself. Still, I suppose it depends upon your definition of a big shop, which you haven't bothered to give us.

 

- if it is not a shop security guard's job to deal with shoplifters, why is he becoming involved in such matters (and what is he there for otherwise)? The fact is that preventing and dealing with theft is exactly why security staff are employed, so there is no disruption if they have to deal with a shoplifter, and consequently no additional cost.

 

- I am sorry to hear that your wallet was stolen, but to say that it would probably not have happened if there had been a security guard there (who presumably was not looking dealing with his primary function), is both facile and asinine, because it is impossible to know.

 

- I am not defending shoplifters. Shoplifting, like all other forms of theft, is wrong. However, the correct process for dealing with shoplifters is through the criminal justice system, not, as I have already stated, by a commercial enterprise like RLP setting itself up as an alternative. Retailers already have a remedy to claim damages from those convicted of shoplifting - and they don't need creatures like RLP to do it. If retailers are unhappy with the police response to alleged shoplifting, then that is something they should take up with the police, and if necessary the Home Office, through the proper channels.

 

- You consistently ignore the fact that many of RLP's victims are not shoplifters; in fact, they have not been convicted of anything at all, so they are innocent in the eyes of the law. One of the most worrying aspects of RLP's activities is that they prey on people who are vulnerable for various reasons - age, mental health and so on. In the criminal justice system these things can be addressed, but justice does not feature in RLP's business - profit is the only motivation. RLP also appear to be spectacularly unsuccessful in dealing with the biggest source of retail loss - organised gangs of shoplifters; they seem quite happy to leave them to the police and criminal courts.

 

- You appear to be making a case for the police not to be involved in dealing with alleged shoplifters, so that they can attend to your granny when she is attacked in the street. Firstly, a serious assault would always be prioritised, as I'm sure you know, but there is a serious point. But what if the police weren't slapping a shoplifter's wrist in Tesco? What if they were informing someone of a fatality in a RTC? Or carrying out surveillance on a terrorist suspect? The fact is that these are matters for the police; retailers can't take the law into their own hands. If we decide that the police shouldn't deal with shoplifters, and leave them to badly-trained security guards and the likes of RLP, who have a financial interest in accusing people of wrongdoing, where does it end? And again, you ignore the point that RLP doesn't just target people who may have shoplifted; they also target people who have made an innocent mistake, and the vulnerable who may not have known what they were doing, and they do it in an aggressive way. Supposing the person who stole your wallet said he took it because he thought you'd stolen something in the shop, and he was just claiming damages? His statement would be just as valid as some of RLP's claims. If he was caught, would you want the police and criminal courts to deal with him, or should we say that it's a low level crime, let's let a gang of speculative invoicers have a go at getting him to pay damages? I suspect not, because as you said, the law is the law. You haven't touched upon what other measures retailers could take to protect their stock. Just as the police have to balance and prioritise use of their resources, so retailers have to decide how secure they want their stock to be, balanced against the ease with which it can be stolen, and the effect and cost of having everything behind the counter.

 

- I will defer to your A level knowledge of law in re tort - but I don't think I've questioned what tort is, or whether shoplifting is theft or not. I only wish you'd paid more attention in English.

 

I agree with one point you have made; I don't want to pay extra in shops either. Security is simply an overhead that is factored into retail prices, though, so I could just as well ask for savings to be made in heating and lighting shops, or for shops to reduce their profit levels. Anyway, I have the choice of where I shop, and what I buy, and my choice is influenced by many factors; whether they have security is not one of them.

 

Pray tell, incidentally, where you think I have insulted you? I think I have been at pains to be polite, though the truth may hurt.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Incidentally, I note that the Consumer Affairs Minister was on Radio 4 at luncheon time today, talking about CAB providing the future focus for consumer advice. That appears to me to demonstrate government confidence in CAB's abilities. The Law Commission, which is a government body, and CAB, both find that RLP's activities are at best questionable.

 

I think Frogboy really needs to ask himself why he doesn't know what he's missing...

[ScarletPimpernel]

Last year, ACPO had this to say to the BBC in a piece about RLP:

Assistant Chief Constable Allyn Thomas, of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) says:

 

"Some retailers feel frustrated by the courts and the police who see shoplifting at the lower end of offending, and we support their efforts to remedy that, but the problem comes when some companies respond disproportionately.

 

"It would be wholly inappropriate if individuals were being brow beaten into an admission of guilt."

 

ACC Thomas says anyone subjected to continued and inappropriate approaches from civil recovery organisations should report the matter to the police.

 

Seems clear to me - ACPO aren't fans of civil recovery as practiced by RLP either...

 

So, that's ACPO, CAB and the Law Commission versus an A level in law and a gang of speculative invoicers. Wager on the outcome, anyone?

[ScarletPimpernel]

You lot dont know what you are talking about. Landlord & Tenant. You clearly dont have proper legal jobs or you wouldnt be sitting making defamatory false statements about major companies and their affiliates, and insulting people on your forum who questions your nonsence. You really are mising the point here. It is becaue the Police dont have resources that ACPO, the Home Office and Government are urging retailers to use civil recovery as a deterrent to crime. Many big businesses in the UK use CR. You seem to focus on Boots and TK Maxx, what about companies and organisations, like Tesco, Sainsburys, Ikea, Waitrose, Lidl, Debenhams, Iceland, Wilkos, Marks & Spencers, Asda, Co-op, Top Shop, B&Q, Argos, Railway companies, insurance companies, the NHS, Virgin, Energy Companies, internet companies, Starbucks & coffee shops, motorway service stations, airport shops, city centre schemes with police and local authorities, oil companies, H&M, bookmakers, Harods, Superdrug, Makro, need I go on?The CJS cannot cope with the level of crime against business. The civiljustice system is a route open to them. They are not vigilantes, a court will decide if there is a dispute. What in that can you not understand? CR is used widely in USA, Canada and in Europe.I have only been on holiday in the middle east. Perhaps the severe sanctions for theft and crime in those countries such as those you mention, means that there is no requirement for CR. Cant speak for Afghanistan, but I doubt you can either. CAB's figures are plucked from thin air: 10,000, then 450, then 4,000, then 93, now 15,000. Ask yourself why that CAB man is using his current channels to spread his propaganda, rather than with the CAB. I expect RLP probably do make a bit of profit. They arent going to offer a legal service for free are they. No doubt all the law firms who do civil recovery (including the major ones) how much they charge for doing civil recovery. As for the businesses, why shouldnt they be seek compensation. By the way, you do not appear to understand the different between compensation and profit - perhaps you should look in a dictionary. You talk about a new law. What is wrong with the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, and good old fasioned common law? Other than the fact of course that you and the CAB do not understand insofar as business crime is concerned. I'm not RLP's biggest fan. I just came across this and see that you there seems to be a witch hunt based on some obvious agenda you lot have. I therefore looked into it, and see the injustice of you are doing. It is a small company, facing a load of crap for big companies, making very little profit, for offering what I see is a good service to drive down crime. (Yes very little profits. You lot not heard of Companies House?)You should be ashamed of yourselves. I bet there are hardworking honest people, on a moderate income for getting abuse every day from thieves who read your rubbish. I just have the guts to say the truth and stand up for the little man. CAB v RLP - like David & Goliath, but we know what happened there. I think I'll go to the case in Oxford if they let me in. As that CAB man says through his dubious pubication - Watch this space!

 

Ok then Frogboy... Show us where any statements here are defamatory and false, as you say.

 

Bearing in mind the quotation from ACPO I posted earlier, and the fact that they required RLP to remove misleading material about them from their website, and that the Government have just appointed CAB to be the official focus for consumer advice, please give us examples of where ACPO, the Home Office and Government have urged retailers to use civil recovery.

 

None of us have ever denied that the civil court system is open to retailers as a remedy against shoplifters. The retailer will be the claimant, so I don't see a need for parasitic companies like RLP. I particularly object to the methods used by RLP and their ilk, for exactly the same reasons that the Law Commission give in their recent report. I also find the way that RLP and the like target those who are innocent in law and the vulnerable to be repellent, ethically untenable and morally repugnant.

 

You talk about profit and compensation, but it is you who does not understand the fundamental principles. A retailer can bring a claim for damages - but this can only be for the amount they can prove they have lost. They cannot add a random sum for 'compensation' or for profit.

 

The only reason retailers use companies like RLP is because they percieve it as an additional revenue stream.

 

I said I speak from experience of Afghanistan. Since you appear to struggle with the lightest intellectual task, this means that I have been there.

 

I find this bit particularly risible:

It is a small company, facing a load of crap for big companies, making very little profit, for offering what I see is a good service to drive down crime.

 

No-one forces RLP to be in business. If they find things to be disagreeable, they can simply close down - I doubt that there would be many mourners at the funeral. Their business has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing crime; it is wholly about generating profit, just like any other business. Want proof? Easy. Prof Joshua Bamfield, who started RLP originally, envisaged civil recovery only being used against convicted thieves (and no-one on CAG disagrees with that). However, he distanced himself from the company after it began to target people who had done nothing wrong. You can easily find this information with a bit of research. In the alternative, please provide the statistical evidence to prove that RLP is making an impact on crime.

 

Why do I liken RLP to vigilantes? Because they do not, as you suggest, leave matters to a court to decide, primarily because they have no cause of action so can't bring cases themselves. The miniscule number of cases (compared to the number of civil recovery episodes) that retailers have brought in which RLP say they have been involved (though in what capacity they remain silent about) were all default judgments or cases of employee theft. What RLP prefer to do is intimidate their targets into paying them by using aggressive methods - these are the methods on which the Law Commission commented, and which ACPO have suggested should be reported to police. There does not appear to be one case on record in which RLP were successful in a properly defended case.

 

I bet there are hardworking honest people, on a moderate income for getting abuse every day from thieves who read your rubbish. I just have the guts to say the truth and stand up for the little man.

 

Which thieves are these? What proof do you have to support this ludicrous statement? I'm not sure why you assume that thieves are abusive, but in any case, remember that we aren't supporting thieves - what about the hardworking honest people who are targeted by badly trained security guards trying to meet targets (vide TK Maxx threads), and the hardworking honest people wrongly targeted by RLP and the like?Are you suggesting that the staff at RLP are hardworking and honest? They may well be, but what they do and the way they do is a matter for their consciences.

 

The only little man I see here is you. I don't think RLP need you to be their mouthpiece - a quick Google will show that they are quite capable of bumping their own gums in slippery defence of what they do. You talk about David and Goliath - but RLP surely have all those retailers, and various self-interest groups behind them, don't they? Earlier on you told us that ACPO, the Home Office and Government were all on side too, so which is David and which is Goliath? Or is it that you know deep down that the writing is on the wall; ACPO et al don't support RLP; the support groups and retailers will prove to be fair weather friends and not give a tinker's cuss if RLP cease trading. Most amazing of all, you waffle about David and Goliath and standing up for the little man, but the irony of the way RLP target innocent individuals escapes you completely.

 

When I was a child I enjoyed the stories of Robin Hood, an innocent man labelled as an outlaw by the Sheriff, who claimed to have the backing of the crown. As you may recall, the dodgy lawman came to a sticky end, along with his confederates. Quelle coincidence that the story was set in Nottingham!

 

I suspect that the writing is on the wall for civil recovery as practiced by RLP; the tanks are at the airport, and no amount of denials, posturing and grandiose but risible claims about court cases will change the outcome. RLP have perhaps learned that you can't polish a turd, so they are now trying desperately to roll it in glitter.

 

 

And finally...

 

During this most entertaining debate, I have had a nagging feeling that Frogboy reminded me of someone. One of the Sheriff of Nottingham's lickspittles, perhaps? Possibly. but no. Baldrick to Ms Lambert's Blackadder? No.

 

And then it came to me - Frogboy is Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, the former Iraqi Minister of Information, and I claim my ten guineas:

 

 

"I have detailed information about the situation...which completely proves that what they allege are illusions . . . They lie every day."

 

"The CAB is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"

 

 

Have a great weekend!

[ScarletPimpernel]

Hilarious. Its your system that doesn't like paragraphs. I suppose that you are as good at IT as you are at the law. You dont seem to be able to understand accounts either. No surprise either. Surely a successful businessman knows how to interpret accounts.As I said you have no understanding about what you are talking about. Going to a court 4 times hardly qualifies you as an expert.As I also said, you are spouting old news previously spouted by the CAB based on a misunderstanding of the law. DO YOUR RESEARCH before misleading the public. That's up to date research. The CAB have not published anything for a long time, but the CAB man keeps banging on about it elsewhere. There is obvisously a reason for that. People used to believe the world was flat. A lot of people will have seen the positive postings on your website about RLP very quickly disappear. I've even seen somebody ask why

 

Which positive postings are those?

 

Anyway, come on, I've challenged you to back up your statements, so stop waffling and get on with it.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I still want to know why he thinks the CAB man has dubious pubes

 

And how we've insulted him when he called us all shoplifters....

 

I feel slightly guilty about having a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but I'm sure it'll soon pass.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Frogboy seems to have had his little lunchtime spurt, and now he's gone quiet again. I'd like to think he's busy typing a detailed response to the questions I've raised (with evidence, paragraphs, spelling and everything) - and I have, after all, answered all of his - but I am afraid that I suspect he has gone back to work to count paperclips or something. I really must make an effort to be more congruent with his sort; after all, it's not his fault that his education left him wanting. It's a sad indictment of society that fails to teach a youth to write properly, and then fills his head with a soupçon of law, and sends him unchecked into the world, in all likelihood with the crotch of his trousers around his knees and 'product' in his hair, bad manners and no humility. He sounds like the kind of youth my RSM would never tire of beasting around the square. Perfectly vile.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I've made a Freedom of Information Act request. It is easy to get the information you seek. As I said before, it wouldnt suit whatever agenda it is you have to find the truth.

 

A FOI request will not provide answers to the questions I asked you - which were, in case you've forgotten, asking you to provide evidence to support the statements you have made here. Why won't you engage in a proper discussion - perhaps it doesn't suit your agenda? Whatever the answer, your credibility becomes ever diminished the longer you continue with this silly attitude.

 

Why should we make a FOI request? Why don't you (or RLP) provide the information that would lend strength to their arguments? I think we should be told...

[ScarletPimpernel]

I'm not RLP but I've realised that this is about Boots not TK Maxx. The TK Maxx one just happened a little while ago but the Boots one happened years ago. My solicitor had the papers so I just assumed it would be the TK Maxx one. Does anyone know why Boots are doing this now? And can they?

 

You must think we're all stupid. You see, in your first post you said that, in relation to 'your' case, that:

 

My solicitor has said that the claim has been issued.

 

If a claim has been issued against you, as you assert, why would your solicitor supply you with the documentation which not only doesn't relate to the correct case, but is also the documentation which would be held by the claimant's lawyers? What we need to see is the claim paperwork relating to your own case. Without this, you have no credibility, and all your posts will appear to be no more than another one of RLP's turd-polishing attempts.In any case, time is marching on and you or your solicitors must have had to send something back to the court by now.

 

Frogboy - your attempts to divert attention from your own failure to provide any evidence whatever to back up your claims and refute ours are now becoming tedious. Put up, or shut up.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I have been asking Frogboy to substantiate his claims, and provide answers, for a while now, but he either can't or won't provide any. I think his silence speaks for itself.

 

Quite why he focuses on FOIs I cannot imagine. Perhaps he means that one could FOI the courts, but as I said earlier I do not think that HMCS would be able to comply within the constraints of the Act. If, on the other hand, Frogboy has made an FOI request to the courts, why doesn't he share the information - it's in the public domain, after all.

[ScarletPimpernel]

If the claim form document has not come from RLP or Shakespeares, then how came it into the possession of Jonny46? Has there been some sort of criminal activity?

 

If the claim form did come from RLP or Shakespeares, then it seems to me that at the very least a serious attempt to deceive and mislead has been made, potentially as part of a greater conspiracy. CPUTR, anyone?

[ScarletPimpernel]

I am not sure why, if Frogboy really has FOI'd HMCS, he doesn't share the information. Unless, of course, it contradicts RLP's claims; they are invariably careful to only publicise information that appears helpful to them.

[ScarletPimpernel]

To anyone who thinks that the site team should ban the sock puppets, I remind you of Admiral Lord Nelson's well-known advice:

 

"Gentlemen, when the enemy is committed to a mistake, we should not interrupt him too soon."

[ScarletPimpernel]

What are you saying then? In the CAB case the CAB man is talking about, he says they got a Fixed Penalty Notice. They are not therefore innocent. What can be the basis of their Defence? They stole stuff. The shop has a loss as a result. They should pay surely. What do you mean by "summary justice"? CAB man says there is a trial. Soundsl like it you who is "silly and misconceived". Why is it when you cant answer a straight forward question you don't like you resort to insults? I already said I am not a fan. I am very interested in why you seem to be on some kind of witchhunt against a small company which seems to provide a good service and solution to widespread crime, in defence of thieves. I tend to be drawn to support the underdog and I know right from wrong.

 

Another risible post. Again you fail to draw the distinction between the criminal justice system, which is the correct way to deal with someone who 'steals stuff', and the likes of RLP, whose only motivator is profit.

 

To accuse Myddelton of not answering a straightforward question, and of insulting others is breathtakingly trite. You have consistently failed either to answer straight questions and you have regularly insulted others. The only reason your behaviour has not attracted robust moderation is because we are waiting for you to answer our questions.

 

Summary justice? Here's Wikipedia's definition:

 

the trial and punishment of suspected offenders without recourse to a more formal and protracted trial (for example a jury trial) under the legal system. It is also a term sometimes used to describe or justify vigilantism.

 

Whilst I am surprised that anyone who claims to have studied law at any level doesn't understand the term, examples would range from FPNs, military summary dealings (i.e. AGAI action) through to the way the Taleban punish offenders against their version of Sharia law; PIRA beatings of alleged drug dealers and of course dear old RLP and the like setting themselves up as judge, jury and executioner.

 

Quiet how any sentient being could view RLP's activities as a 'solution to widespread crime' is beyond me. I asked you earlier to provide evidence that RLP contributes to crime reduction in any way; you failed to respond. I do not doubt that you will not answer now. There is no element of crime reduction or crime solution in any of RLP's activities, which revolve solely around the generation of profit for themselves.

 

If you know right from wrong, and are drawn to the underdog, what say you to the cases where RLP has targeted those with mental health issues and other vulnerabilities?

[ScarletPimpernel]

You still miss the point. There are not 6 million or so spare bobbies hanging about waiting to arrest shoplifters. Jails are full. Courts are closing. Theft continues to increase. As I said in my earlier threads, you dont appear to be able to understand accounts as well as the law. Where do you get your figures from? The CAB ha ha ha ha ha How are vulnerable people targeted? Why would a retailer do that? Why would RLP do that? Surely if it was all about profit, they would target the more affluent people who steal, like AWT. RLP has a guide for helping vulnerable people caught stealing.

 

So, you are saying that since there are no policemen to deal with shoplifters, the prisons are full, and courts are closing, retailers should now take the law into their own hands. What utter drivel, and not something that any civilised society would contemplate. Policy decisions are made by our elected government; retailers, just like anyone else, can campaign for change. In fact, they do this already, via the BRC et al.

 

Read some threads on here carefully, and you will see how RLP target the vulnerable. Why would a retailer and RLP target them? Simple - money, the only reason for RLP's existence. RLP have no idea, when they send their speculative invoices, as to the mental health or capacity of their victims, neither does it know whether they are affluent or not.

 

Anyway, when are you going to answer our questions and provide evidence to back up what you say, instead of simply rehashing RLP's outpourings and making ad hominem attacks?