Rlp

[gtingo18]

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.

[gtingo18]

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.

[SabreSheep]

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.

 

 

The store has the right to pursue. Your right not all need to go to court, that is why the fixed penalty was introduced. To deal with offenses ont he minor scale

 

Secondly you are still justifying UNLAWFUL practices.

 

Where does it end?

 

Should we be allowed to BEAT UP shoplifters as well? Your entire argument seems to be based around the "I think they are guilty so we can do what we like"

 

SO again, please tell us how you feel justified supporting an unlawful system?

[SabreSheep]

And remember a person is INNOCENT untill they are convicted.

[ScarletPimpernel]

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.

 

I'm afraid that's simply incorrect as to fact. RLP is a company whose sole purpose is to generate profit - nothing more, nothing less. There are plenty of cases on here where RLP have pursued people vulnerable by way of mental health issues.

 

Whilst the criminal justice system takes into account mental health or other issues, it's not in RLP's interest to. Furthermore, RLP has no right to the information, any more than shop security do.

 

You say the police like civil recovery. There may be some officers whose personal opinion is that, but ACPO made RLP remove from their website anything that may have (mis)led readers into thinking there was any official endorsement of their activities. Suggestions that the PSNI approved were also removed.

 

Once again, I ask you why, if this is all above board, did the Law Commission say that civil recovery claims are on shaky legal ground and that companies like RLP use aggressive and misleading practices?

[renegadeimp]

And remember a person is INNOCENT untill they are convicted.

 

Convicted in a court of law. Not because RLP say so.

 

It's also very strange that a brand new poster comes to this forum, and to the RLP section, and tries to defend the companies actions and make it seem as if it is 100% legit.

[ScarletPimpernel]

It's also very strange that a brand new poster comes to this forum, and to the RLP section, and tries to defend the companies actions and make it seem as if it is 100% legit.

 

It wouldn't be the first time. Remember Frogboy, the RLP stooge, and sidekick? Around the same time there was another user who claimed to be a retail worker who sung RLP's praises; a little work revealed the individual to work in quite another, non-retail industry, but who was located close to RLP's lair, which was no doubt a coincidence.

[rebel11]

Don't forget, that's not always the case, this is what you said earlier.

 

'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.'

Remember, there needs to be consistency in posts to engage others.

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.

[ericsbrother]

Amongst the varies things I have done in my life I can include running 2 retail businesses, one of which I only wound up this year. I have sufferd theft by staff, fraud by staff and theft by customers. I have casue to have one employee arrested and I dsmissed more than one for theft or fraud. I have never involved the police with theft by customers because the losses individually have never waranted the effort I would have to put into a prosecution. I have sued 2 customers who stole from meand one of those cases ended up with court bailiffs recovering monies on my behalf.

 

I would never ever consider using a company like RLP because they would make no difference to my losses, they would cost me money and cause me aggravation and even more expenditure of time and effort in pursuing those caught out stealing from me.

 

 

The big chains use them because they are lazy and dont want to put in place methods for limiting theft in the first place because it would then harm their takings as the stores would be less attractive shopping experiences. If you want people to buy lots of stuff they have to be able to see and touch it. That makes it easier to steal and some people make a living doing just that. RLP feed on that dichotomy and make promises as to their performance that can never be quantified.

 

It is a bit like saying other safety devices such as speed cameras that are used save lives but arent actually part of the vehicle or infrastructure. It is argued that by having x number of speed cameras reduces fatal accidents by y amount each year. I say then name the people who didnt die as a result. The biggest changes to road safety has always been as a result of changes in vehicle design. Now it can be argued that these changes are forced upon the manufacturers by government but it isnt so, it is the customers who demand it and part of that is how insurers jusdge the customer for selecting a certain brand.

 

 

So back to the stores, change in the behaviour of the shopper will determne waht is successful and if they feel as though they arent going to get away with stealing things then they wont. Catching people afterwards is actually already too late so your collar feeling record isnt something to boast about in the larger scheme of things because those people werent deterred.

 

However, like the speed camera and lives saved, how do you quantify the success of the other methods if you put all of your efforts into detection rather than prevention or deterrence? You will never change somepeople's behavious by deterrence or even by detetion and punishment. That percentage of people will never change their habits, same as a percentage will never be tempted. However, for the majority of people the bit you cant measure works and that means that RLP are utterly pointless as well as being dishonest in their claims and motives.

Edited November 16, 2014 by citizenB
formatting

[dx100uk]

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.

 

 

codswallop

 

 

there are numerous cases on here already.

 

 

they don't care they send out the letters regardless.

 

 

dx

[SabreSheep]

OK on another tack.

 

As RLP are agents of the retailer (Your employer) do you therefore agree that the retailer is responsible for the unlawful actions of RLP?

[gtingo18]

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.

[silverfox1961]

I have just had a really stupid idea but one that may work.

 

If security staff observe someone concealing an item wouldn't it be better to say to them, "Put it back as you will get detained if you leave the store." Rather than waiting for them to actually leave and then detaining them?? Like I said, stupid idea.

 

What isn't a stupid idea and one I have used in my past is to follow a shoplifter around the store. They get so paranoid, they put the stuff back.

 

What is so different with a mother with nappies and the full time employee who steal a jacket. That line of reasoning just doesn't work as we all know that there are many so called mums out there who steal. Just look at a few TV programs.

 

Most first timers will be so traumatised by the whole experience that they may completely forget any mitigating circumstances.

 

Let us also not forget that no security guard is allowed to forcibly detain anyone nor are the allowed to force anyone into a back office where who knows what happens.

 

If you suspect that someone is a shoplifter, they do not have to agree to anything and in that situation the police should automatically be called.

 

MY rule is that if I were to be stopped, I would demand they call the police and stand my ground. I do not have to follow a security guards instruction as they have as much power as I do. I will not be forcibly escorted to any office as that will be classed as assault. I will peacefully ask other shoppers to be my witness to any action security take. I will not make a scene. the best bit is, I do not steal so any attempt at detaining me would be unlawful.

[SabreSheep]

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.

 

 

IN general. ESP RLP. These are not FINES and have no BASIS in LAW as per the rulings in the courtcases where RLP were taken to Court. Misrepresenting them as FINES is unlawful. Only the justice system can levy FINES.

 

The way that RLP misrepresent themselves to their victims, saying there is a debt and that they have the right to take them to court. Bullying and harassing people even passing it to debt collectors. Harassment can be criminal, just as criminal as shoplifting.

 

Issues such as threatening to put them on data bases and issue references and threatening employment prospects. ALL breaches of the Data Protection ACR

 

Saying that victims have failed to follow pre court protocol when in actual fact that is a misleading statement. ONLY the retailer can take court action and therefore only the retailer can engage in pre court protocol.

 

You speak as if these penalty Fines are Punishment. They are not. Punishment can only be decided by A COURT or a POLICE OFFICER in the way of a on the spot penalty of £80 or CAUTION

 

So once again

 

Do you endorse UNLAWFUL CONDUCT?

[ScarletPimpernel]

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.

 

They're all equally morally repugnant.

 

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.

 

In much the same way, some people in parts of Northern Ireland think that the criminal justice system doesn't deal with car thieves quickly or robustly enough, so they allow paramilitaries to dispense 'justice'. Just as unsavoury as the way civil recovery is practiced.

 

 

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.

 

Disgusting behaviour, on both sides. I hope you had the moral courage to report it, but somehow I suspect that you didn't.

 

 

Penalty fines are a deterrent, they work.

 

Since penalties and fines can only be imposed by statutory authorities, at last we agree on one thing.

 

 

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 too soon - you still don't understand the basics legal situation. Civil recovery isn't about punishment, or at least that's what the companies in the business say. They say they recover damages, but they know that's questionable too, which is perhaps why there are so few court cases. Perhaps they say that because it would be unlawful for them to be involved in punishment; perhaps it's also why we know that the whole business is legally dodgy.

 

When will you understand that it's not for you or any security guard, retailer or civil recovery company to punish anyone, no matter how much you may want to. That is a matter only for the criminal justice system.

 

Ultimately, despite all your bluster, all you and civil recovery can do is is willy-wave, bully and mislead people about civil recovery.

 

The way shoplifting is dealt with by the police is not entirely satisfactory, but civil recovery isn't the answer.

[gtingo18]

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........

[gtingo18]

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

[rebel11]

You said,

 

'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!'

correct?

You said,

 

'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.'

correct?

[silverfox1961]

As you won't be here till later on (I assume you are at work) could you please answer these two questions.

 

1 In the many years as a security guard, how many juveniles have you apprehended (under 18)

 

2 Does your store issue these:

 

http://lossprevention.co.uk/pdf/NoticeIntendedCivilRecovery.pdf

 

I will explain my reasoning once you have answered.

[renegadeimp]

The poster is pretty evasive. They wont name their employer for 'contractual reasons', yet this forum is 100% anonymous and there is no way for their employer to find out. Of course, he has the right to withold his employers name, but everything that has been posted so far makes me smell a rat. Or at least a security guard that isnt very good at their job.

 

As for the OP's constant use of the word theif.... Unless the person in question has been charged or prosecuted, they are accused. Nothing more. Especially in this context. You'd do well to remember that.

[SabreSheep]

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

 

Its already been mentioned on here about the oxford case and other legal sources that say their fines have no basis in law. I think a judges opinions carry far more weight than your own.

There is plenty of case law where amounts that do not reflect the genuine estimate of loss are considered PENALTIES and are UNENFORCEABLE.

You have ignored the points raised about chasing false debts constituting unlawful Harassment.

 

And actually ALL CASES are the same IN LAW where RLP are involved. There is NO LEGAL BASIS FOR ANY RLP case PERIOD

 

Face it, you have admitted as a "Professional Loss Manager" that you condone unlawful activity. You have shown to be hypocritical. You have ignored or evaded valid points. You have failed to justify your case for RLP morally OR Legally

 

RLP will be closed down, but you better hope its done voluntarily. If someone actually does counter sue RLP then they have the right to add the retailer to the lawsuit and ANY SECURITY staff involved in the case. Your attitude shown here actually undermines any sympathy people have for retailers, not the other way round.

[gtingo18]

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.

[gtingo18]

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.

[SabreSheep]

 

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.

 

Not bitter at all. I just hate bullies who try to justify wrongdoing.

 

The police do NOT endorse RLP. Read some of the threads. RLP have been forced to remove material form their website suggesting the police support it. What you have are other peoples opinions who work in the police force. The police forc e itself DO NOT SUPPORT RLP that is their offical postion.

 

Im glad that you finally agree that you support RLPs unlawful approaches. Some of which have been rebuffed IN COURT

Therefore you prove that you are an unprofessional bully who feels they have the morale high ground.

And yes, ONLY A COURT can decide if someone is GUILTY.

 

To approve otherwise is to invite anarchy. Why have a criminal system at all if people like you can bully others after deciding they are guilty.

 

Again you have failed to convince anyone that RLP is morally right. I think this thread may be approaching the end of its life.

 

Last and not least perhaps you should have a read

 

http://thejusticegap.com/2014/08/end-road-civil-recovery/

 

This points out the legal flaws in RLPs practice. It also points out that you the "client of rlp" would be jointly liable for some of their now criminalized activities. Note it says CRIMINAL

 

So again, your support and practicable assistance with RLPs activities equates to standing outside and mugging them under threats of violence. Only in this case its bullying via letter writing and false threats of court action. By supporting and condining these methods, you are just as liable.

Edited November 18, 2014 by SabreSheep
Addition

[rebel11]

Not at all, read what you have written, everyone else has, one statement contridicts the other.

 

'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.'