Rlp

[SabreSheep]

It certainly makes interesting reading to see all the people on here, ex police officers and such, going out of their way to offer advice to thieves on how to avoid incurring these 'civil recovery' costs. I would personally doubt the legitimacy that a lot of these people have done the jobs they say they have. Shoplifting causes billions of pounds of loss year in, year out. How many decent people do you suppose have lost their jobs due to cutbacks as a knock on effect. Decent people who want to work and pay tax, provide for their families in the proper way by going out to work and not playing the benefits system. Are we doing them people a service by essentially offering legal loopholes for shoplifters to avoid punishment? If someone is detained wrongfully I agree whoever is responsible should be dealt with in a severe disciplinary scenario. But this is an example of the society we live in where there are threads telling people how to avoid shoplifting penalties...............If I started a thread stating 'I've been caught shoplifting, can someone help me I've had a letter saying I owe money' I'd fully deserve to be told its entirely my own fault and I have no right to expect sympathy. That I chose to act dishonestly, with a lack of integrity, and that people like me cause honest hardworking people their jobs through my greed and immoral compass.

 

What kind of a world are we living in where we offer support to assist shoplifters to continue behaving as they do knowing there are ways out of everything.

 

Why not some proper life advice, have some self respect, some human decency and don't steal from shops!!

 

 

FIRST off.

 

Penalties can only be awarded by a COURT. RLP have no more right to threaten a member of the public with fines and money demands than you or me.

 

Second

 

There is a criminal system of law that operates in this country. Noone condones lawbreaking here IF a crime happened (And in many of these cases they didnit) then there is a nationally recognised process to deal with it. Condoning vigalante actions outside the process is just as immoral! ESP considering RLP has no oversight and uses complete rubbish to bully people into paying speculative invoices.

 

NOW

 

If someone came here and said I stole XX and have been arrested and being taken to court then their help would prob be along the lines of explaining the process.

 

Now im reporting this thread as this is a discussion tagged onto someones else s problem

[SabreSheep]

The retail industry also do not help themselves. Having worked in the industry before for 12 years at various sites some of the blame comes back to the company.

 

EG

 

In a store with a large shoplifitng problem from under 18's, putting a prmotional end opposite the front door that contains losts of bottles of wine of Alchaol and then wondering why the stock is going out the door without being paid for.

[SabreSheep]

At the end of the day

 

It is against the law to STEAL

 

It is also against the law to harass, bribe and commit acts of vigilantism.

 

RLP is the latter.

 

2 wrongs do not justify a right. If you want people to abide by the law, you have to be willing to do the same, or your complaints are hipporcritical. You cannot demand proteciton udner the law whilst setting up and operating an unlawful second system.

 

Or actually here is a point. If you work in Loss prevention like you imply, maybe you like the idea of RLP. Extra money for you? No Shoplifters = to no job for you so maybe just maybe you like the idea of having a captive market to bully and harass. Makes sense why prevention in retail does not happen.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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