Rlp

[rebel11]

So am I correct in thinking this is a forum designed solely to assist the financial well-being of people who have been caught shoplifting?

 

Your words, not ours. We do not condone shop shoplifiting in any form, but we also don't accept sending out speculative invoices on numerous occasions to alleged shoplifiters who haven't been found guilty by the courts.

Or actually, is it not encouraging people to do so, knowing they can pop on forums like this having been caught and learn how to wave all punishment?

 

Your words, not ours. Have you read the CAB reports on civil recovery, it might be an idea. We're not saying 'shoplifters' shouldn't be punished, but that's why the courts exist. Suprisingly, 'shoplifters' have rights, a right to a 'fair' justice system.

Civil recovery, whilst admittedly is run like a cash cow, is in my experience of having worked in retail a great deterrent to a lot of your 'average' offenders to prevent them from re-offending.

 

There you have it, 'run like a cash cow', unfair, unjust. As to whether 'it's a deterrent', unless you have access to a lot of data for the whole of the UK, you can't make such a statement.

 

 

By that I mean people who have jobs, who aren't desperate and have offended needlessly. These people beg to avoid police involvement, and are only too happy to pay civil recovery as they understand they don't deserve to get away with it scott free, but don't want a criminal record.

 

Again sending out speculative invoices regardless of background is unfair, unjust. Unless you know everything that goes on in peoples lives, their background, their health etc I wouldn't go judging people. Anybody who has paid civil recovery's speculative invoice has done so not understanding fully. They have done so by being threatened and bullied.

A lot of police officers were in my experience delighted with use of civil recovery, as it meant more cases were dealt with 'in house' and kept crime figures down.

 

Well, it doesn't represent what's actually happening then does it. When they cut 1,000 police jobs because of the false figures, they will be the first to moan.

 

Is it permitted to submit a counter argument to the general opinion??

 

We appreciate sensible posts.

[rebel11]

Responses in 'blue'.

 

Hi rebel, thanks for the reply.

 

In response:

 

Are you saying therefore that every single shoplifting offence needs to go through the criminal courts in order to be recognised as an actual crime?

 

I'm not saying that, because that doesn't happen at the moment, The police can issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for £80.

Is the point where an offender is informed of civil recovery at the point of detention, informed of the costs at the point of detention, (companies have access to the price points of which civil fines alter), and them having fully admitted the theft they have just committed, not an effective way of resolving this issue without burdening the taxpayer with expensive court cases?

 

The courts stated that is not fair or acceptable, the retailer lost.

I think you are missing the point that 99% of people would prefer this option to being in a criminal court. That is a statement I have years of experience to make

 

That 99% is not possible, not even in the 400 stores in the company you work for, I very much doubt you or your company carried out a poll / survey at the time of the incident. If your going to make such statements please back up with how you arrived with the 99%.

 

Of course shoplifters have rights to a fair justice system. The fact of the matter is, they don't want it! The reason I mentioned people in a job was not a dig at people's personal circumstances, but relevant to the point.

 

Shoplifters don't want a 'fair justice system', laughable.

Would someone keep their job if they were outed as a convicted shoplifter? Highly unlikely. Would they rather avoid the criminal record and pay the money to civil recovery?

 

That would depend on the job they did in the company? Social Responsibility the company feels for it's employees. You some how think it is automatic, it just isn't. I would go as far as to say it is very rare.

Again, how many retailers have taken shoplifters through the court system? Not many.

 

I cannot begin to tell you how many people thanked me for offering them this option. In these cases a civil fine they can deal with, a conviction ruins their life.

 

I bet they'd give you a glowing reference. Laughable. CAG can advise on speculative invoices. Again, how many retailers have taken shoplifters through the court system? Not many.

 

Surely you don't believe that shoplifters who are banged to rights on cctv will get away with it?

 

The retailer should pursue a case through the courts if they believe they have a case.

 

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.

 

Did the cctv evidence show that indeed the goods were purchased elsewhere and weren't stolen? Wasn't the CCTV working? Civil Recovery mute the cost of Surveillance camera's, not working not good.

So in that instance alone you cannot preach the justice system without acknowledging it is equally flawed. That offender with the aid of a solicitor could have easily lied their way out of the situation and walked out innocent had I been less experienced. So an innocent verdict for a guilty shoplifter, is that justice?

 

The justice system is very flawed, we see a lot of strange judgements, that's why judgements can be appealed if they fit certain 'criteria'.

We have no way of know what happened in the case you quote, besides it is very strange the retailers has no CCTV footage.

 

I had data for the whole of the UK for my company, which has nearly 400 stores across the UK.

 

That is meaningless because there are thousands of retailers out there.

 

You are completely correct also that police are the first to complain when there are cuts. But believe me there are police officers posting on here who would be quick to complain if we involved them for every single shoplifting incident, yet also complain by us taking civil action.

They haven't got a choice, they have a job to do, on the whole they do a good job. They have various tools they can use.

Shall we welcome offenders in with open arms? Some police love you to deter, which incidentally is loved equally by the offenders themselves as they dodge a bullet. Police know they will only go round the corner and rob someone else, but that is fine as they won't have to deal with it.

 

I remember a police officer ranting at me for allowing them to steal it on camera, and not going out and deterring them as she doesn't want us to create crime, (or more accurately, compromise their performance figures). Yet when she saw I dealt with 85% in house, it was amazing to see how she suddenly completely accepted the way I did my job.

 

If you can prevent crime that is what you should do, that is common sense. Maybe that is why the police get upset, 'prevention' is a key word in police speak. Then you have employees in stores playing 'cops and robbers' with 'Walkie Talkies'.

The justice system simply could not handle having to deal with every shoplifting incident, this is a fact.

 

If you prevent crime in stores before it happens, then that would drastically reduce crime stats.

[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.

[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?

[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.'