Civil Recovery - Why not?

[TopBoy]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Really topboy. well all we have is your word for that. Yet your attitude points to something completely different! I grew up on a rough council estate with a single parent, living on hand me down clothes and struggling to buy food each week. I lived amoung the type of people you say threatened you with knifes and shotguns every day mate. So your experience, if it happened, is nothing, yes the estate is a lot quiter and safer now since the early nineties, but thats beside the point.

Now am a self made millionaire, why am i the millionaire when your not. Ohh its because i had the balls to get out of the minimum wage ranks and do something about it. Or perhaps it because your already well off, and are not actually a security guard at all but just someone using what some security guards had likely come across or what you read in the papers/news to back up your arguement. By the way, if we did follow your argument then a hell of a lot of innocent people would find themselves facing court for a crime that they did not commit (A very danagerous situation given the stress and emotional efffect i can have, especially on vulnerable people who can lose their jobs cos of it and end up unable to pay their bills and council tax as a result - is that what your suggesting?) and the amount of miscarriages of justice would shoot through the roof, the law is how it is now, not just to protect the victim of crime but the innocent too.

Minimum wage came into force on 1st april 1999, you say you have worked minimum wage for years i say you did no more than 2 years on it as security guards are paid more than minimum wage. Plus even if you were paid minimum wage for 70 hours a week, the income from earnt for those hours means you shouldn't have any problems financially if they were the amount of hours you regularly worked, even in 1999 with an hourly rate of £3.60 per hour which is a total of £252 before deductions, which back then was a handsome wage. today it would be £6.19 per hour which a wage of £433.30 before deductions.

MY opinion is more profound then yours simply because it is based on the law of the land. Yes a person guilty should face court and be found guilty but at the same time should be treated innocent till proven guilty. RLP have no right in law to charge either guilty or innocent people anything. If they did, then we would end up seeing speculative invoices left right and centre and a whole load of innocent people recieving them just as we did when ACS:Law sent out speculative invoices, but ohh look how hard ACS:LAW fell. The same will happened to Cireco whom the ICO is interesting in, after all its an offence to process a person data inaccurately and without that person permission, and i suspect RLP will fall just as hard as ACS:Law does. It only take 1 person with the balls to sue them!

WOW, still talking about innocent people, thought maybe we'd passed that after i spet it out in capital letters. Your argument is that people should be put before the courts, agreed- another point we do not need to go over. The fact that you have resorted to implying that i have lied about my circumstance shows that you feel your argument is weak - those are just a hanfull of situations that i have encountered over the years. the power is in the numbers here and you obviously stick to one argument, no negotiation, no mid-way point, no consequences. Teaboy, if, god forbid your business was to fail (and i would not wish this on anyone, believe it or not i like the idea of someone from your background making a success of themselves) would you still feel the same about the thieves who stole from your business still living more prosperously than yourself.

The law of the and says that these people are breaking the law - they have said they broke the law. Thats the END OF of the situation. If anyone wants to contribute to my £120.00 p/yr them pm me and i will tell you where to send the cheque.

[Celestine]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

OK, lets move away from the moral arguments for a second.

TB - you are trying to address the issue of GENUINE proven shoplifters?

Have you read the Judgment yet? The Defendant was a teenage shoplifter who admitted her offence.

A Retailer calculated its Civil Recovery demands thus:

Total spent per year on Security £3500000
TOTAL number of detentions 30,000

Result £116

This is the amount of their average CR demand.

(Apologies if my figures vary from Judgment, it's the formula we really need)

Can you see the obvious problem with this method?
(And I kid you not, this is how it is calculated!)

Also as a Security professional, I'd seriously recommend you read the transcripts because most of the evidence was provided by the security staff. Fascinating stuff.

[teaboy2]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

I suggest you reread my post then if you still thinking am talking about innocent people only. I clearly stated the following "MY opinion is more profound then yours simply because it is based on the law of the land. Yes a person guilty should face court and be found guilty but at the same time should be treated innocent till proven guilty."

What you fail to realise is that everyone heere agrees that those who are guilty should be punished, but that punishment should be by a court of law, not be a cooperate organization of company, that profits from crime, as that is exactly what RLP and retailers are doing be sending out speculative invoices.

Hell why are you even trying to argue with me. I am a wholesaler who also sells to the public, yes i have had fraudulent sales to members of the public and lost the goods as a result via false claims of not as described, not received, or damaged, yet goods not returned despite being refunded. So your arguing with the owner of a company in the very same industry as highstreet retailers whom employ RLP (e.g. retail/wholesale), Whom, insiders admit behind closed doors thats its a profiteering scam and your trying to tell me we have a legal right to pass alleged offenders details to RLP and have RLP send them speculative invoices threatening legal action etc. When those very invoices contain extortionate amounts that even they could not prove in court as being accurate to the actual costs the retailer incurred as a result of the shoplifting/theft not to mention blackmail with their threats of what may happen if the person does not pay up. Are you also condoning the sending of those letters to person(s) under the age of 18 as well which does happen, along with friends of those that committed the act, but not themselves do any wrong doing, yet still also received the demands for payment from RLP. Sorry but thats like allegeding the guy next door stole your kids chocolate bar and putting up posters to that effect in your neighbourhood regardsless of whether he was innocent or guilty

Did you know it is unlawful to send demands for payment for sums that are not actually owed? No i guess you did not!

So given the above facts, do i feel my argument is week, do i feel it is week when the oxford case proves otherwise and supports my view RLP can not lawfully claim such costs from alleged shoplifters and that only a court has the authority to force them to pay such compensation to the retailer? No in fact i feel my argument is 100% rock solid! My implications you made be lying where nothing more than honest opinion based on the fact anyone can post up any old crap on a forum knowing no one can prove otherwise. You may doubt my claims about myself, but theres members here that no of my company and upcoming business projects 1 member is even due to start as a trade partner once he has got a few personal matters dealt with.

As for theives living more proserously then myself, well in the majortiy of cases it is very unlikely, your average shoplifter is not a rich man, but simply a poor man, hence why items of meat are the most stolen items from the supermarket nowadays, as they can't afford food so they have to steal it instead and guess what, it will get worse when universal credit comes in and the new rules for jobseekers are enforced, which i do not agree with either, as it amounts to forced labour and workin 30hrs per week for a fixed number of weeks does not help them in finding work at all, instead it takes jobs vacancy employers have from the job market as employers exploit the job seekers for free labour especailly supermarkets and no doubt factories will follow suite, just like they all jumped on the agency workers band wagon for cheaper labour costs.

At end of the day Topdog, what Retailers and RLP are doing amounts to vigilantism by taking the law into their own hands. Yet their is no civil rememdy for victims of Shoplifters or theives, other than claiming compensation for actual costs incurred at the time the crime was committed. Even then the alleged offender most be criminally prosecuted and found gulity by a court of law at it is that court of law that decides what compensation is to be paid to the victim. Or are you suggesting that a new company call Assualt Victims Compensation Claims, should start up so that assualt victims can claim civil compensations from alleged attackers, whetehr that alleged attacker was guilty of the offence or completely innocent. As that the very kind of DANGEROUS crime remedy that you are surpporting!

OF an no its not the law that says they broke the law, its the evidence which includes the background circumstances and evidence on whether it was committed with intent or not. No intend, means not crime, even if they admitted they broke the law. You see someone unknowingly may have committed a crime unintentionaly only to admit what they did when pointed out to them, without knowing that the law states if the did not intend to commit the crime then no law was broken, as it was simply an honest error of jugement or lack of thinking, or forgetfulness. So sorry just beause someone admits to a crime, not knowing that its only a crime, it doesn't mean they are guilty of the crime. Christ even i have walked out of a shop after paying and not realising till i got outside (though once i got all the way home before i realised) that the checkout assistant or the automated checkout had not taken for 1 particular item, i go back in and explain it and admit what happened, but as it was not intentional i simply pay and off i go. Yet many others that have done the exact same, some don't even get chance to realise their mistake before being pounced on by security, get castrated for it and accused of being shoplifters even though they admit their mistake and what they did.

So sorry, but when faced with what they did, intentationaly or not, and having then security guards use puasavive powess of shoving "Your a ****ing shoplifting arn't you" or "Your a theive aren't you you theiving *******" in their faces and down their throats when they are detained, have had they belongings, unlawfully i might added, removed from them and search and had themselves physically searched, again unlawfully, all whilst being urged to fill out and sign forms which are, by the way, admittal of guilt forms and nothing less also whilst under duress. Does not in my opinion amiount to a lawful and valid admittal of guilt. The Police know this hence why they why they do not always arrest the alleged person!

So sorry its not just about whether the person admit there guilt like you keep arguing, as if it was then it would effect both guilty and innocent people and would allow RLP to chase both innocent and guilty alike just like they are right now with complete and utter disregard for the law, all because it makes them and their retailer clients a profit!

EDIT

Sorry Cel - Was writting my reply so didn't see your post!

Yeah i see the problem, they are basically profiteering of alleged shoplifters with speculative invoices in order to recuperate their total costs of security - 116 x 30,000 equals 3,480,000 just 2,000 short of the total cost of security! But then when you take into account the actual pennies on each invoice of 0.67p then hey presto £116.6666667 x 30,000 equals the total cost of security of 3,500,000.

[EXC]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

TB - you are trying to address the issue of GENUINE proven shoplifters?

Have you read the Judgment yet? The Defendant was a teenage shoplifter who admitted her offence.

I was going to mention this.

Guilt, whether admitted or not, is irrelevant to the consideration of whether civil recovery (at least the model used by RLP) is in fact legitimate and in the Oxford test case the judge concluded that is was not.

[TopBoy]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Hell why are you even trying to argue with me. I am a wholesaler who also sells to the public, yes i have had fraudulent sales to members of the public and lost the goods as a result via false claims of not as described, not received, or damaged, yet goods not returned despite being refunded. So your arguing with the owner of a company in the very same industry as highstreet retailers whom employ RLP (e.g. retail/wholesale), Whom, insiders admit behind closed doors thats its a profiteering scam and your trying to tell me we have a legal right to pass alleged offenders details to RLP and have RLP send them speculative invoices threatening legal action etc. When those very invoices contain extortionate amounts that even they could not prove in court as being accurate to the actual costs the retailer incurred as a result of the shoplifting/theft not to mention blackmail with their threats of what may happen if the person does not pay up. Are you also condoning the sending of those letters to person(s) under the age of 18 as well which does happen, along with friends of those that committed the act, but not themselves do any wrong doing, yet still also received the demands for payment from RLP - Completeley agree, would not do this myself and would take action if any staff in my control detained in this circumstance
Sorry but thats like allegeding the guy next door stole your kids chocolate bar and putting up posters to that effect in your neighbourhood regardsless of whether he was innocent or guilty

Did you know it is unlawful to send demands for payment for sums that are not actually owed? No i guess you did not! - of course, which is why i have agreed that the system is flawed, but needs a remedy rather than being outlawed

So given the above facts, do i feel my argument is week, do i feel it is week when the oxford case proves otherwise and supports my view RLP can not lawfully claim such costs from alleged shoplifters and that only a court has the authority to force them to pay such compensation to the retailer? No in fact i feel my argument is 100% rock solid! My implications you made be lying where nothing more than honest opinion based on the fact anyone can post up any old crap on a forum knowing no one can prove otherwise - i can assure you that i have not lied/exaggerated a single point, and i'm sorry but this seems like a direct assault on my charachter just because i am offering personal experience which doesnt tie in with the popuar consensus here.

You may doubt my claims about myself - why would you say this? i have no reason to believe/disbelieve what you have said, and to be honest, i dont feel that weather you are a millionaire or a part-time toilet cleaner makes any difference to your opinion

, but theres members here that no of my company and upcoming business projects 1 member is even due to start as a trade partner once he has got a few personal matters dealt with - you seem to really want to push this issue???.

As for theives living more proserously then myself, well in the majortiy of cases it is very unlikely, your average shoplifter is not a rich man, but simply a poor man, hence why items of meat are the most stolen items from the supermarket nowadays, as they can't afford food so they have to steal it instead and guess what - this may be the case, but at the end of the day you should live to your means, as the rest of us do - contrary to some of thge posts on here i do not live on a diet of caviar and fillet steak, why should others. yes, a lot of people are in a bad situation but crime is not the answer, or an excuse
, it will get worse when universal credit comes in and the new rules for jobseekers are enforced, which i do not agree with either, as it amounts to forced labour and workin 30hrs per week for a fixed number of weeks does not help them in finding work at all, instead it takes jobs vacancy employers have from the job market as employers exploit the job seekers for free labour especailly supermarkets and no doubt factories will follow suite, just like they all jumped on the agency workers band wagon for cheaper labour costs.

At end of the day Topdog , what Retailers and RLP are doing amounts to vigilantism by taking the law into their own hands. Yet their is no civil rememdy for victims of Shoplifters or theives, other than claiming compensation for actual costs incurred at the time the crime was committed. Even then the alleged offender most be criminally prosecuted and found gulity by a court of law at it is that court of law that decides what compensation is to be paid to the victim - I'm not disagreeing with the legalities, i'm disagreeing with the principle. criminal courts do not have the resourses to process. Or are you suggesting that a new company call Assualt Victims Compensation Claims, should start up so that assualt victims can claim civil compensations from alleged attackers, whetehr that alleged attacker was guilty of the offence or completely innocent. As that the very kind of DANGEROUS crime remedy that you are surpporting!

OF an no its not the law that says they broke the law, its the evidence which includes the background circumstances and evidence on whether it was committed with intent or not. No intend, means not crime, even if they admitted they broke the law. You see someone unknowingly may have committed a crime unintentionaly only to admit what they did when pointed out to them, without knowing that the law states if the did not intend to commit the crime then no law was broken, as it was simply an honest error of jugement or lack of thinking, or forgetfulness. So sorry just beause someone admits to a crime, not knowing that its only a crime, it doesn't mean they are guilty of the crime - I am fully aware of this - which i why processes i have put in place for my staff is that the police are now asked to attend every incident, obvioyusly this does not result in arrest/conviction in all cases but does "back-up" the evidence provided by my staff. Christ even i have walked out of a shop after paying and not realising till i got outside (though once i got all the way home before i realised) that the checkout assistant or the automated checkout had not taken for 1 particular item, i go back in and explain it and admit what happened, but as it was not intentional i simply pay and off i go. Yet many others that have done the exact same, some don't even get chance to realise their mistake before being pounced on by security, get castrated for it and accused of being shoplifters even though they admit their mistake and what they did. - again, i agree that this type of incident is discraceful, but feel that previous posts claiming that "most" of the offenders are innocent, i a wholly speculative, and likely inaccurate statement. I'm sure you are all aware that some of the people who come here for help may not be entirely honest about the circumstances.

So sorry, but when faced with what they did, intentationaly or not, and having then security guards use puasavive powess of shoving "Your a ****ing shoplifting arn't you" or "Your a theive aren't you you theiving *******" in their faces and down their throats when they are detained, have had they belongings, unlawfully i might added, removed from them and search and had themselves physically searched, again unlawfully, all whilst being urged to fill out and sign forms which are, by the way, admittal of guilt forms and nothing less also whilst under duress. Does not in my opinion amiount to a lawful and valid admittal of guilt. The Police know this hence why they why they do not always arrest the alleged person!

So sorry its not just about whether the person admit there guilt like you keep arguing, as if it was then it would effect both guilty and innocent people and would allow RLP to chase both innocent and guilty alike just like they are right now with complete and utter disregard for the law, all because it makes them and their retailer clients a profit!

EDIT

Sorry Cel - Was writting my reply so didn't see your post!

Yeah i see the problem, they are basically profiteering of alleged shoplifters with speculative invoices in order to recuperate their total costs of security - 116 x 30,000 equals 3,480,000 just 2,000 short of the total cost of security! But then when you take into account the actual pennies on each invoice of 0.67p then hey presto £116.6666667 x 30,000 equals the total cost of security of 3,500,000.

There need to be a better system, i agree - maybe a policy that police attend the incident to ensure the detention was lawfull, and better processing of the claim - ie: an accurate breakdown of the cost of the offence.

[miliitant]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

accurate breakdown of the cost of the offence.

THATS THE ARGUMENT RIGHT THEIR

you cant put a price on a crime from a private entity (RLP)

if an owner has been deprived through theft, the courts fine as a deterrrent and do a compensation order to the value that has been lost payable to the victim

WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND

[TopBoy]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

there is no progress here - we are going in circles. What do you suggest we do about these situations?

- have every shoplifter arrested and processed through the courts??

- Let them go to face no consequences, to commit further crimes??

I'm trying to prompt a productive response here, rather than keep argueing the same points over again. can we not suggest a realistic solution?

[miliitant]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

THEIR IS ALSO CASE LAW THAT DICTATES CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS

it means a party cannot be peanalised above what the loss actually suffered

only a court can fine an indavidual

any shoplifter who is apprehended needs to go through the courts or if a copper decides with agreement of the store, to issue a fixed penalty notice

thats is the way things are done

what is your argument????

[TopBoy]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

High st store detain a shoplifter.

S/detective monitors shoplifter for 30 mins = £6.00

S/Detective + uniformed guard detain shoplifter & wait for police (total 1 hr 30 mins) = £33.00

S/Detective prepares any evidence/P/work relating to offence (1 hr) = £12.00

(Female shoplifter) female member of staff present (1 hr 30 min) - £10.00

Sundry costs of offence (CCTV disk/postage costs) = £5.00

Stock damaged due to ripping of packaging/security tags = £40.00

Total cost to retailer of offence = £106.00

In your scenario police issue FPN (no respite for retailer)

The offence costs the store £106.00, a cost which has to be compensated for - a member of staffs hours cut by 16?

is this fair?? should the hard-working tax-paying member of staff lose out - or should the thief bear the cost of the offence.

That is my argument. And before you refer me to the laws, and test cases i have already been referred to, i am looking for a solution - not a problem.

If the police officer can issue FPN without a court hearing - can he not confirm that an offence has taken place for the purpose of CR (just a suggestion!) police in our city used to issue store cautions, where an offender would sign the officers pocket-book with an admission of the offence. maybe an official record could be held for these purposes.
If we go back to the start of CR, the pilot scheme in solihull, the police used to issue CR paperwork to offenders at the police stn.

[miliitant]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

store detectives/security guards are employees of the store and are on a salary

retail loss is incorporated into the price of goods anyway, so no loss to the store., as well as theft it covers breakages, stock spoilage etc etc

paperwork, again staff on salary so no loss

if retailer not happy then they inform the copper to prosecute

put it another way

we all pay more for our car insurance due to uninsured drivers, is that fair, no, but its a fact of life

same to retail loss

[teaboy2]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

Also Retail loss via crime can be claimed back via insurance and via tax too. So the retailer doesn't make any loss at all, all those involved in monitoring, detaining, interviewing and filling in forms when a shoplifting offence occurs, would still be paid even if no offence occured. Therefore their is NO Subsquencial loss to the retailer as they can not claim what they would have had to pay as standard operational costs.

Hell why are you even trying to argue with me. I am a wholesaler who also sells to the public, yes i have had fraudulent sales to members of the public and lost the goods as a result via false claims of not as described, not received, or damaged, yet goods not returned despite being refunded. So your arguing with the owner of a company in the very same industry as highstreet retailers whom employ RLP (e.g. retail/wholesale), Whom, insiders admit behind closed doors thats its a profiteering scam and your trying to tell me we have a legal right to pass alleged offenders details to RLP and have RLP send them speculative invoices threatening legal action etc. When those very invoices contain extortionate amounts that even they could not prove in court as being accurate to the actual costs the retailer incurred as a result of the shoplifting/theft not to mention blackmail with their threats of what may happen if the person does not pay up. Are you also condoning the sending of those letters to person(s) under the age of 18 as well which does happen, along with friends of those that committed the act, but not themselves do any wrong doing, yet still also received the demands for payment from RLP - Completeley agree, would not do this myself and would take action if any staff in my control detained in this circumstance
Sorry but thats like allegeding the guy next door stole your kids chocolate bar and putting up posters to that effect in your neighbourhood regardsless of whether he was innocent or guilty

Did you know it is unlawful to send demands for payment for sums that are not actually owed? No i guess you did not! - of course, which is why i have agreed that the system is flawed, but needs a remedy rather than being outlawed - But its already unlawful, its against the law and for very good reason, because otherwise we would all be receiving tons of demands each week for payment of things we know nothing off with the prospect of being taken to court if we did not pay. There is no way it can be remedied other than for a shoplifter to be charged and to have their day in court where if found guilty a court will decide what they have to pay.

So given the above facts, do i feel my argument is week, do i feel it is week when the oxford case proves otherwise and supports my view RLP can not lawfully claim such costs from alleged shoplifters and that only a court has the authority to force them to pay such compensation to the retailer? No in fact i feel my argument is 100% rock solid! My implications you made be lying where nothing more than honest opinion based on the fact anyone can post up any old crap on a forum knowing no one can prove otherwise - i can assure you that i have not lied/exaggerated a single point, and i'm sorry but this seems like a direct assault on my charachter just because i am offering personal experience which doesnt tie in with the popuar consensus here. You may well be telling the truth, and i certainly mean not direct assualt on anyone, but its a simple fact that anyone can post anything online and others will be non the wiser

You may doubt my claims about myself - why would you say this? i have no reason to believe/disbelieve what you have said, and to be honest, i dont feel that weather you are a millionaire or a part-time toilet cleaner makes any difference to your opinion

, but theres members here that no of my company and upcoming business projects 1 member is even due to start as a trade partner once he has got a few personal matters dealt with - you seem to really want to push this issue???.- Am not pushing the matter at all. simply providing confirmation that i am who/what i say i am, therefore preventing anyong from using my example of anyone posting anything about themselves online, whether true or a lie against me. Hence why i pointed out other members here can vouch for me!.
As for theives living more proserously then myself, well in the majortiy of cases it is very unlikely, your average shoplifter is not a rich man, but simply a poor man, hence why items of meat are the most stolen items from the supermarket nowadays, as they can't afford food so they have to steal it instead and guess what - this may be the case, but at the end of the day you should live to your means, as the rest of us do - contrary to some of thge posts on here i do not live on a diet of caviar and fillet steak, why should others. yes, a lot of people are in a bad situation but crime is not the answer, or an excuse - Problem is those that are desperate have no means in which to live by, don't have the money to buy their food for the week, after paying say their rent or council tax? Besides Supermarkets are not exactly innocent victims, they scam all of us every day with their bogus special offers and bogus 2 for ones, where say 2 months ago you could by 2 for roughly the same price as your buying 1 and 1 free for, but lets not get side tracked on that. MY mum was in that situation a few times when i and my brother were kids, fortunately the neighbours were good friends and despite the area being rough, back then their was some community spirit and people did help one another out. Not like today when you don't even know the person 2 doors down!
, it will get worse when universal credit comes in and the new rules for jobseekers are enforced, which i do not agree with either, as it amounts to forced labour and workin 30hrs per week for a fixed number of weeks does not help them in finding work at all, instead it takes jobs vacancy employers have from the job market as employers exploit the job seekers for free labour especailly supermarkets and no doubt factories will follow suite, just like they all jumped on the agency workers band wagon for cheaper labour costs.

At end of the day Topdog , what Retailers and RLP are doing amounts to vigilantism by taking the law into their own hands. Yet their is no civil rememdy for victims of Shoplifters or theives, other than claiming compensation for actual costs incurred at the time the crime was committed. Even then the alleged offender most be criminally prosecuted and found gulity by a court of law at it is that court of law that decides what compensation is to be paid to the victim - I'm not disagreeing with the legalities, i'm disagreeing with the principle. criminal courts do not have the resourses to process - But that does not give RLP or Retailers the right to take the law into their own hands especially since retailers do not make any loss of theft as they can claim it back in taxes or insurance. We would end up back facing the same situation nottingham had in the 1200's a shrieff that was a law unto himself and Robin that led band of merry men, hiding in the woods as outlaws if cooperations were granted legal rights to take action against those that the court did not have time or resources to process! Also if i remember rightly the Magna Carter grants everyman or woman the right to fair trial by court as well as the right to be deemed innocent till proven guilty. We can not simply go against the cornerstone principles and liberties we have stood for for hundreds of years, just so a company and a few retailers can act as judge, jury and executioner. Are you seriously suggesting we tear up the Magna Carter, which is the corner stone of what gives us our rights and liberties today, which also makes it clear we rule this nation not the queen and not the government, hence why we have the right to vote? The system isn't flawed as its their to prevent people abusing the system for their own gain, which is why RLP and retailers are not liking the system and claiming its flawed. Or are you suggesting that a new company call Assualt Victims Compensation Claims, should start up so that assualt victims can claim civil compensations from alleged attackers, whetehr that alleged attacker was guilty of the offence or completely innocent. As that the very kind of DANGEROUS crime remedy that you are surpporting!

OF an no its not the law that says they broke the law, its the evidence which includes the background circumstances and evidence on whether it was committed with intent or not. No intend, means not crime, even if they admitted they broke the law. You see someone unknowingly may have committed a crime unintentionaly only to admit what they did when pointed out to them, without knowing that the law states if the did not intend to commit the crime then no law was broken, as it was simply an honest error of jugement or lack of thinking, or forgetfulness. So sorry just beause someone admits to a crime, not knowing that its only a crime, it doesn't mean they are guilty of the crime - I am fully aware of this - which i why processes i have put in place for my staff is that the police are now asked to attend every incident, obvioyusly this does not result in arrest/conviction in all cases but does "back-up" the evidence provided by my staff - Well at least your doing it right unlike some security personnel, the police make there decisions based on a number of reasons though, including background of the shoplifter, i.e. are they a vunerable person, first offence, value of goods, reason for taking them and more. Off course i agree if their is admittance of guilt and the police are satisfied it was given willingly and the offender admitted to taking the item with intent, then they should be arrested and face court, or at the very least given a on the spot fine (perhas one remedy would be for a new type of fine, specifically for shoplifters which would include a fine and value of goods, if they can not be but back on the shelf for sale. Christ even i have walked out of a shop after paying and not realising till i got outside (though once i got all the way home before i realised) that the checkout assistant or the automated checkout had not taken for 1 particular item, i go back in and explain it and admit what happened, but as it was not intentional i simply pay and off i go. Yet many others that have done the exact same, some don't even get chance to realise their mistake before being pounced on by security, get castrated for it and accused of being shoplifters even though they admit their mistake and what they did. - again, i agree that this type of incident is discraceful, but feel that previous posts claiming that "most" of the offenders are innocent, i a wholly speculative, and likely inaccurate statement. I'm sure you are all aware that some of the people who come here for help may not be entirely honest about the circumstances. Most offenders caught are caught because they are amatuers. Hardened shoplifters solemly get caught, and when they do, they already know how to get away with it, and there the ones that keep coming back and get caught more than just once. Where as the majority, yeah some maybe first time offenders that had intent, the rest are mainly people that had no intent and made stupid errors of judgement or had a lapse of thinking or simply forgot they had the item in their possession. I mean how many times have you asked where your keys are, only to find they are already in your hands!

So sorry, but when faced with what they did, intentationaly or not, and having then security guards use puasavive powess of shoving "Your a ****ing shoplifting arn't you" or "Your a theive aren't you you theiving *******" in their faces and down their throats when they are detained, have had they belongings, unlawfully i might added, removed from them and search and had themselves physically searched, again unlawfully, all whilst being urged to fill out and sign forms which are, by the way, admittal of guilt forms and nothing less also whilst under duress. Does not in my opinion amiount to a lawful and valid admittal of guilt. The Police know this hence why they why they do not always arrest the alleged person!

So sorry its not just about whether the person admit there guilt like you keep arguing, as if it was then it would effect both guilty and innocent people and would allow RLP to chase both innocent and guilty alike just like they are right now with complete and utter disregard for the law, all because it makes them and their retailer clients a profit!

EDIT

Sorry Cel - Was writting my reply so didn't see your post!

Yeah i see the problem, they are basically profiteering of alleged shoplifters with speculative invoices in order to recuperate their total costs of security - 116 x 30,000 equals 3,480,000 just 2,000 short of the total cost of security! But then when you take into account the actual pennies on each invoice of 0.67p then hey presto £116.6666667 x 30,000 equals the total cost of security of 3,500,000.

Now look at the figures above, and its clear retailers and RLP are simply using the invoices to recover a retailers annual costs spent on providing security. Hence why its a profiteering racket as they not only get back the cost they paid for security but its also probably tax free too!

[enaid]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

As stated the stores do not actually incur a cost for theft we all chip in and pay for it in the end. In view of this do you think the stores actually do enough to prevent theft, especially as it is well known that it is big business and very well organised by gangs.
I can imagine the automated pay sections (that I have never got through yet without shouting for help) would tempt quite a few to have a go at not paying for quite all their shop.
Having worked in a supermarket I do know that staff are not always given the best of T&Cs for working there and often minimum wage, they have no incentive to either prevent or report shop theft it is often just left to the one security guard based near the door.
So it starts at the bottom really the 'I don't care' attitude maybe the stores should actually see if they can find ways and means of helping themselves to help us.

[EXC]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

High st store detain a shoplifter.

S/detective monitors shoplifter for 30 mins = £6.00

S/Detective + uniformed guard detain shoplifter & wait for police (total 1 hr 30 mins) = £33.00

S/Detective prepares any evidence/P/work relating to offence (1 hr) = £12.00

(Female shoplifter) female member of staff present (1 hr 30 min) - £10.00

Sundry costs of offence (CCTV disk/postage costs) = £5.00

Stock damaged due to ripping of packaging/security tags = £40.00

Total cost to retailer of offence = £106.00

In your scenario police issue FPN (no respite for retailer)

The offence costs the store £106.00, a cost which has to be compensated for - a member of staffs hours cut by 16?

is this fair?? should the hard-working tax-paying member of staff lose out - or should the thief bear the cost of the offence.

But £106 is not the ''cost to retailer of offence''. Most of the items listed were paid by the retailer as a matter of choice and would have been paid regardless of any subsequent offence.

And just how does ''the hard-working tax-paying member of staff lose out'' ? I'd genuinely be interested to know.

It's fine saying that you're only interested in ''looking for a solution'' but until you accurately grasp the issue you will never find one.

[teaboy2]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

love to know how "Stock damaged due to ripping of packaging/security tags = £40.00" amounts to £40.00 in costs especially on items selling for under that amount and said damaged stock value can recuperated in insurance or claim back from taxes.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Civil Recovery - Why not?

High st store detain a shoplifter.

S/detective monitors shoplifter for 30 mins = £6.00

S/Detective + uniformed guard detain shoplifter & wait for police (total 1 hr 30 mins) = £33.00

S/Detective prepares any evidence/P/work relating to offence (1 hr) = £12.00

(Female shoplifter) female member of staff present (1 hr 30 min) - £10.00

Sundry costs of offence (CCTV disk/postage costs) = £5.00

Stock damaged due to ripping of packaging/security tags = £40.00

Total cost to retailer of offence = £106.00

.

forgive me if im wrong here but

Costs in green already paid: store needs security staff anyway, and as such there is no need to charge extra for someone doing their jobs.

costs in red: covered by shops insurance.

so, the first set of figures dont apply as the security staff are already present, and paid to aprehend shoplifters, and the second figures are paid by the shops insurance policy (as per what happens when you pick up a packet of cat litter and it goes everywhere.... same basic principle)

so.. where is the rest of the money coming from, as I'm pretty sure the police don't charge to come out to a crime.

Personally I dont see the problem with Mr/Mrs police officer arriving, checking out the situation and determining the solution. naughty peoples get dealt with by the Law (fines/sentence for repeat offenders set down by a judge) and the majority of those who receive the demands, innocent people who have geuninuely made a mistake and make an offer to pay, told to be more careful in future and sent on their merry way without the threat of a letter demanding hundreds of pounds for a 50p chocolate bar!

EDIT:
Boys, please stop reading my mind!!!