Help with RLP

[rebel11]

Your post below is silly and misconceived, we're not saying that people shouldn't be punished if they have done wrong, but not only are innocent people are being caught up in a 'one fits all' treatment regardless of the actual individual circumstances, regardless of any actual proof being presented, regardless of any genuine breakdown of costs, it's a form of 'summary justice' that's simply wrong.

 

Will gladly share it when received. Might make it my little project. I have a couple of months free before I am off on my travels. I have a strong suspicion it may make you all look pretty stupid.Oh, and funny comments re Johnny being a criminal. He has already admitted that. That is why he is on your site. He is a thief by his own admission - like millions of other people in the UK. You would have them all get away it with would you? Would you feel the same if a constant stream of people walked into your house and took your stuff every day, or your office, or all of your family and friends' houses and places of employment? You would expect the Police to arrive and deal with it right? But how could they, as they would probably at the 6 million other people's houses and offices attending to thefts from there. Cant be everywhere can they? Oh no, what would you do? Couldnt possibly ask the people who steal from you to pay. That would be criminal surely! You wouldnt want to instruct somebody to recover your belongings and other losses on your behalf would you, as that would be illegal and harassment and all the other rubbish you lot spout. Dont understand your attitude to theft and criminals who mar our society and make life miserable for everybody else, the seemingly few honest and good people left in this country. I'm glad I'm going to be away from it for a year or so.

[Myddelton]

Berryman is a law firm that used to act for Boots, and which merged with another firm, Shakespeares, in 2011. The document posted by jonny46 on 20 April is a document sent to Shakespeares by Crewe County Court. So, it can only have been posted by someone working at Shakespeares, Boots, or RLP. So, jonny46 is a stooge (one of many on this site over the years), and a not very bright one at that. That should be obvious to anyone - even someone with an A level in Law.

[andydd]

Berryman is a law firm that used to act for Boots, and which merged with another firm, Shakespeares, in 2011. The document posted by jonny46 on 20 April is a document sent to Shakespeares by Crewe County Court. So, it can only have been posted by someone working at Shakespeares, Boots, or RLP. So, jonny46 is a stooge (one of many on this site over the years), and a not very bright one at that. That should be obvious to anyone - even someone with an A level in Law.

 

Given it is clear that jonny46 has been rumbled and unlikely to pop his head up again, many people are wondering what exactly is frogboys's interest in this case, why does he so vehemetly defend RLP ?, why does it interest him so much ?

 

Andy

[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."

[frogboy]

Your post below is silly and misconceived, we're not saying that people shouldn't be punished if they have done wrong, but not only are innocent people are being caught up in a 'one fits all' treatment regardless of the actual individual circumstances, regardless of any actual proof being presented, regardless of any genuine breakdown of costs, it's a form of 'summary justice' that's simply wrong.

 

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.

[Myddelton]

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.

 

Er, no, I have never said anything about a Fixed Penalty Notice. That's the two defendants in the claim to which the document posted by jonny46 relates, which is NOT the case that is going to trial on Thursday. As for "They stole stuff. The shop has a loss as a result. They should pay surely", I'm afraid the law is a bit more complicated than that. You only have an A level in Law, and there is some law you (clearly) don't know about. But feel free to turn up on Thursday - you could learn a lot. And, yeah, wear your beard if you want.

[andydd]

"RLP provide a good service and solution to crime", funniest thing I've read for a while.

 

Frogboy, you clearly have no idea what is going on and with each post you make more of a fool of yourself and display your ignorance, believe me, there is a LOT you clearly are unaware of.

 

No-one is defending thieves, but the proper place for them is in the criminal courts, RLP are seeking to sidestep the criminal process (i.e the 'summary justice' rebel11 refered to) in order to make a quick buck for themselves and the stores that employ them, instead of pointless FOI requests, how about you ask RLP how much money they make from this process ?

 

Andy

[Myddelton]

It occurs to me that newcomers to this thread (and those studying A level Law) might want to read this advice by city law firm Herbert Smith for would-be claimants (such as retailers wanting to pursue an unpaid civil recovery demand). Who do you think knows more about this issue: Herbert Smith, or Frogboy with their A level?

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=29bec09d-1ef2-4591-9c56-11fb3a403596

 

This advice relates only to one of the three elements within the pre-set, fixed sums demanded by RLP: staff time. But it's the largest of the three elements, e.g. £82.50 (60 per cent) of the most commonly demanded sum, £137.50.

[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?

[frogboy]

It occurs to me that newcomers to this thread (and those studying A level Law) might want to read this advice by city law firm Herbert Smith for would-be claimants (such as retailers wanting to pursue an unpaid civil recovery demand). Who do you think knows more about this issue: Herbert Smith, or Frogboy with their A level?

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=29bec09d-1ef2-4591-9c56-11fb3a403596

 

This advice relates only to one of the three elements within the pre-set, fixed sums demanded by RLP: staff time. But it's the largest of the three elements, e.g. £82.50 (60 per cent) of the most commonly demanded sum, £137.50.

 

That means nothing. That is not an authority. It is the interpretation of another situation by one lawyer presumably. RLP's site has the advice of Mr Mawrey, a High Court Judge and barrister with 40 odd years' experience. I know who I would rather believe.

[rebel11]

If you can't comprehend a simple paragraph then so be it. There are much better ways of controlling shrinkage, why retailers need a 'small company' to send out 'useless speculative invoices' which is a total waste of paper, I just can't understand it.

 

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.

[frogboy]

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:

 

 

 

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?

 

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.

[frogboy]

If you can't comprehend a simple paragraph then so be it. There are much better ways of controlling shrinkage, why retailers need a 'small company' to send out 'useless speculative invoices' which is a total waste of paper, I just can't understand it.

 

"Useless speculative invoices" - thought you said they were making millions out of vulnerable people. Make your mind up. ha ha ha ha ha ha

[rebel11]

Where exactly did I say that? You really are funny, really:!:

 

"Useless speculative invoices" - thought you said they were making millions out of vulnerable people. Make your mind up. ha ha ha ha ha ha

[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?

[rebel11]

You truely have lost the plot, 'Parker, just park the Roll's, whilst I relieve the store of a couple of Cashmere Jumpers', 'but Sir, they take Credit Cards'.

 

How would RLP know if someone is affluent?, get a reality check and stop posting, your making yourself look really silly.

 

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.

[Myddelton]

Oh, PLEASE don't moderate Frogboy, I so enjoy reading his/her posts! OK, the teacher who taught them A level Law should be identified and sacked, before they muddle any other young minds, but please don't deprive me of my daily entertainment.

[Anus Horribilis]

I've told you I have made a FOI request. That doesnt happen overnight. Take some of your excellent advice about paragraphs

 

The information we seek is simple - no FOI is required.

 

We want you (RLP) to cite 3 examples of denied, defended civil claims which you have won in the county court for damages resulting from ordinary shoplifting. Any 3 cases you like, as long as they are reliably reported.

[Sidewinder]

Five o'clock must be hometime!

[ScarletPimpernel]

Oh, PLEASE don't moderate Frogboy, I so enjoy reading his/her posts! OK, the teacher who taught them A level Law should be identified and sacked, before they muddle any other young minds, but please don't deprive me of my daily entertainment.

 

Don't worry; Frogboy's posts are amusingly absurd, and his comsec and persec are hopeless, so they're useful too.

[andydd]

Mawrey is ONE man paid for advice by RLP, no other solicitors/lawyers have jumped in to say agree with him, in fact the opinion of CAB and The Law Comission is exactly the opposite,anyway if you read carefully his advice doesnt differ that much from CAB, both point out that disruption to a business may be recoverable via damages, but the cases refered to by Mawrey and RLP only have a very tenuous link to alleged shoplifting, the 'famous' Aerospace v Thames Water much loved by RLP is about a flood that affected their factory, similar to shoplifting ?..I dont think so !

 

Frogboy would be wise to visit my RLP Cases Explained thread where all these issues and Mawreys 'advice' is examined in greater detail.

 

Andy

Edited June 11, 2012 by alanfromderby

[frogboy]

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?

 

What a load of twaddle. Retailers are not taking the law into their own hands. They are exercising their civil rights of redress, the same as every other business and individual is entitled to do. Presumably you have heard of the County Court. They have judges there too.Nobody has adduced any evidence of targeting vulnerable people. That is just your lots propaganda, which no doubt you got from CAB man. RLP and its clients strongly dispute that. After visiting your site, I am quite clear who I would prefer to believe.You ignore the question as to how or why vulnerable people would be "targeted". What would be the point? They are far less likely to have any money to settle a claim. It would not make any business sense to target them. Do you know nothing about retail? Their brand protection is key to their businesses. Targeting vulnerable people and innocent people. What twaddle.I am interested. Is it RLP you have a problem with for some reason, or would you prefer businesses to use high street or city solicitors, making the process even more expensive? Are the two women in court tomorrow vulnerable? If CAB man reckons he has found a few vulnerable people out of 15,000 where is his evidence?

[frogboy]

You truely have lost the plot, 'Parker, just park the Roll's, whilst I relieve the store of a couple of Cashmere Jumpers', 'but Sir, they take Credit Cards'.

 

How would RLP know if someone is affluent?, get a reality check and stop posting, your making yourself look really silly.

 

My point exactly you fool. How could RLP target anybody who is affluent or vulnerable? How would they know? Of course, the truth is that they could not target anybody. They get a case from a store and no doubt consider and open a file. Do employment lawyers target employees? What a stupid thing to say.Are you trying to suggest that affluent people dont steal? That just shows you have no idea about retail. As I said in early threads, why dont you do your research properly before making sweeping vile statements about businesses. I am surprised they haven't sued you all.I dont suppose they would be that petty

[frogboy]

An experienced and respected high court judge v a load of faceless frantic bloggers who clearly demonstrate they dont know what they are talking about. Mmmmm indeed. Speaks for itself really. Do you not know anything about barristers. They are paid (quite well I understand) to give opinion. You really think that a man of Mr Mawrey's standing would say what he was paid to say? Why on earth would he? I doubt he needs the money. Come on, really!

Edited June 11, 2012 by alanfromderby

[rebel11]

The only way to damage a companies image is to hire such companies to send out 'speculative invoices', in fact some companies have felt that it has damaged their companies image that they no longer use the services of such companies. Please stop posting, your looking silly again. I could go through the rest of your post, but it would be a total waste of time.

What a load of twaddle. Retailers are not taking the law into their own hands. They are exercising their civil rights of redress, the same as every other business and individual is entitled to do. Presumably you have heard of the County Court. They have judges there too.Nobody has adduced any evidence of targeting vulnerable people. That is just your lots propaganda, which no doubt you got from CAB man. RLP and its clients strongly dispute that. After visiting your site, I am quite clear who I would prefer to believe.You ignore the question as to how or why vulnerable people would be "targeted". What would be the point? They are far less likely to have any money to settle a claim. It would not make any business sense to target them. Do you know nothing about retail? Their brand protection is key to their businesses. Targeting vulnerable people and innocent people. What twaddle.I am interested. Is it RLP you have a problem with for some reason, or would you prefer businesses to use high street or city solicitors, making the process even more expensive? Are the two women in court tomorrow vulnerable? If CAB man reckons he has found a few vulnerable people out of 15,000 where is his evidence?