Slashdot Mirror
Firm Threatens To Sue Consumer Websites For Harrassment
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that RLP, a legal firm that sues shoplifters on behalf of retail groups, has shown its ignorance of the Streisand Effect by attempting to censor The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) and other consumer websites. RLP has accused CAB of harassment and is demanding that they and other consumer websites remove all 'defamatory posts' and publications. This is the latest salvo in a long running battle and although organizations like CAG (Consumer Action Group) have removed some offending posts, CAB and the Legal Beagles website are refusing to remove content and have accused RLP of trying to stifle reporting of adverse court judgments against them."
So RLP is serving defamation writs to consumer groups, then immediately and publicly defaming them, claiming they launched a malicious and organised internet smear campaign against RLP...
Also, pics-or-shens of the "death threats" RLP has "gotten".
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Another example how some new mega-powered version of the Peter principle is pushing all the idiots to the heads of these organizations. There seems to be incompetency in the top level of every organization right now.
It's not theft. It's piracy. They aren't the same thing.
Oh, wait. Sorry. That was just habit.
Libel laws in the UK are very biased towards the prosecution.
While RLP's tactics may offend your sense of fair play (they certainly do mine), what they're doing works much better in the UK than other commonwealth countries. Suing somebody for libel in the UK is a common tactic for people who know they have no case another jurisdiction--even when there is little or no justification for their preferred venue.
In UK libel law, RLP has a big stick with which to beat its critics. The Streisand effect may direct a few more folks to the consumer websites--I certainly checked them out.
But I'll bet the degree to which RLP is going to get them to permanently back is worth a little transient negative publicity.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
The business model of these companies is particularly pernicious, and relies in the main on the defendants being uninformed and under-resourced.
THe company in question here is actually chasing employees of the Citizens' Advice Bureau - the place where these defendants go for help - often because they can't afford a lawyer.
This is a similar strategy to that used by ACS:Law - which has already felt the wrath of the professional regulator for precisely this kind of tactic. It's quite likely that, as suggested, that they sent a few threats too far.
What they want taken down has nothing to do with defamation and everything to do with offering advise to people who have been sent demands by these people.
Schillings also wrote to BWB, demanding that it take down from its own website its report of the Oxford court case in which it had acted for the two teenage girls.
And Schillings even demanded that the CAB withdraw all its previous publications on civil recovery, including two reports published in 2009 and 2010 which are available on its website.
The reports outline how flimsy their evidence can be and offers effective defenses. This is nothing more then a SLAPP action.
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
Well, there could be plenty wrong with it if it's handled improperly. For instance, suing people civilly after they've been let off criminally because the evidence was sketchy. TFA mentions a particular case where "RLP's client lost and the judge criticised the legal basis of its case". It also mentions the judge thought they were asking for too much money (though it was only for £137.50, which, even if they only stole a £5 item, doesn't really seem like much when you consider time, legal fees, and punitive damages...though I'm not familiar with UK law)
It looks like this is just a bunch of shoplifters who retaliated on-line to being sued.
This isn't about the shoplifters at all. This is the Citizens Advice Bureaux who are a non-profit legal advice service over here in Britain. They basically provide legal advice to folks about civil law, debt, and similar stuff. Essentially there are open legal questions about whether the actual damages in RLP cases are as big as RLP claim they should be.
Why, back in my day passing the bar was an effectively unfettered license to intimidate and extort practically anybody who couldn't afford the services of my colleagues.
Now with these 'inter-tubes', and moron with an ISP can mock, castigate, calluminate, and generally disrespect me. ME a Respectable Businessman. How dare they? This madness must end.
And when they will be unable to present evidence that the harassing threats originated from CAB, hit them with a nice wrongful accusation suit.
Because RLP is lying to customers by trying to legally suppress judgements, say, where they were found to have exaggerated damages, by claiming reprting those was "defamation".
That is what is wrong.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
In fact, a judge has already thrown a case that did go to court out on the grounds that it was unclear why the damages were set at the level claimed or that they were in any way proportionate to actual damage.
The retailers (usually big supermarkets) are attempting to recover the entire costs of their losses to shoplifting and extra security from those they catch.
You haven't studied UK law [1], you haven't been to the UK and you couldn't point to it on a map.
Stop repeating what you hear other ill-informed idiots say and get some exercise, you fat bastard.
[1] there's no such thing. Also if you had any legal knowledge you'd be aware that civil cases don't have a "prosecution".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Except that they catch probably 1% of all shoplifters, so that the single miscreant would get fined 100 times the cost of what they stole, which seems to deny equity. And the store has only to catch a single shoplifter to claim back the millions they lose to all shoplifters all across the country. Not condoning shoplifting, but people should be punished for their own crimes, not for those of others,
It is estimated that 10% of driver speed on the motorway, So catch one speeder and fine him for the 2 million or so others you haven't caught. Justice?
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I don't think "punitive damages" exist outside the USA. (It's a stupid concept: if people need to be punished they should be punished with a fine, paid to the state, after a criminal trial.)
Correct. No punitive damages under England and Wales or Scots law.
you fat bastard
You'll be hearing from my lawyer who specializes in UK libel law.
There's no such thing as "UK law"; there's different (but similar) systems in England and Wales and Northern Ireland (both common law jurisdictions). Scotland has a mixed civil/common law system and its own institutions and methods.
Except that they catch probably 1% of all shoplifters, so that the single miscreant would get fined 100 times the cost of what they stole, which seems to deny equity.
That would be a valid point if shoplifting were just a harmless passtime. However, since it's a crime why not fine them 100 times the cost of what they stole? It might teach them not to do it again. If they only get fined what they steal that's precisely the same as them paying for it at the checkout but with the added bonus that they might well get away with it.
If you can't do the time (or don't want to pay the fine), don't do the crime.
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
Assuming that the show tries its best to catch all the shoplifters it can, it makes sense that if you steal something and the chance you'll get caught is 50% say, you'll have to pay twice the price. And you'll have to add in security costs as well, since otherwise it will come out of the pockets of actual paying customers.
That's not how it works at all, at least in English law. The costs of the prosecution may be recovered (if reasonable) but the costs of detecting the theft in the first place may not. Often, the thief will admit other thefts at the same time (which will be "taken into consideration" during sentencing) but they cannot be punished for that which they were not proved to have done or which they did not admit in court; to do so would be unjust, no matter how convenient for law enforcement and companies.
Fortunately, the vast majority of shoplifters don't just do it once and are thus relatively easy to catch. Most criminals are stupid.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
So the punishment for a crime depends not on what you did, but on what others did? If you stole a candy bar, you should be punished for the unknown person who stole a diamond necklace?
I agree about do the crime/do the time. But for your crimes, not someone else's. If it is right to fine someone 100 times the value for shoplifting, it is right whether they are the only shoplifter in town or one of a thousand. Making any punishment depend upon how many others are doing it is unfair.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
They don't sue shoplifters.
Their business model is simple: issue an official looking letter containing a "fine" for about £80. If you don't pay up, you get reminders and final warnings and such.
Most people pay up.
However - and I daresay this is where RLP are getting upset - there are two minor problems with this business model:
- Under UK law, private organisations can't issue fines. That privilege is reserved for government bodies. A court of law can issue a fine, your local council can issue a fine but if I issue you a fine, I can't do a damn thing to force you to pay up.
- You can't sue someone in order to punish them. If they've caused you to suffer a loss that can somehow be quantified financially, you can sue them to recover the loss, but punitive damages are more-or-less non-existent. If the amount you're suing someone for is in no way related to the amount of financial loss they actually caused, then there's a very good chance it'll be declared a fine and thrown out of court. RLP would need to demonstrate that their "fine" is a genuine estimate of the costs associated with the incident, and as these letters more often than not include the word "Penalty" or "Fine", they've given themselves an uphill struggle before they've even set foot in a courtroom.
NOTE: IANAL. If you are being sued and you take advice from some anonymous Internet source, you need help.
This isn't the court system fining people, this is a private organisation issuing rude letters.
Private organisations don't have the ability to fine people under UK law.
A truly free country has none of this nanny-state loser-pays euro-faggot communism!
In the US he would have been down by half a million! Number one! Number one!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"The punishment should fit the crime". Yes, life is unfair. The whole point of the justice system is to try and bring some fairness to it. If the justice system is perceived as unfair, it loses all legitimacy. The whole point of having prosecution and defence attorneys, juries, rules of evidence etc. is seen to be scrupulously fair. If you then say, basically, that punishment is a lottery: it depends not on what you did, but on what others you know nothing about did, you undermine the whole principle of justice.
And shoplifting is not a collective action: people usually do it individually. If people work as teams, perhaps distracting assistants while an accomplice steals, that is collective action and both should be punished for the crime, But collective punishments generally are regarded as uncivilised and (inter alias) banned by the Geneva Convention.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
"Just like the woman who sued McDonalds for $16 million and won for a spilled cup of hot coffee."
I am SO TIRED of hearing about this, especially when it's from people who have NO IDEA what really happened. Your statement is the ultimate in ignorance. For your edification - the coffee was excessively hot, and McDonalds had been repeatedly warned about it, a warning they chose to ignore. The coffee was so hot, it melted the cup in her hands, and therefore onto her lap, and she ended up with some serious burns in a spot where I'm thinking most folks would not want to have burns.
So, yes, McDonalds were made to pay, just as they needed to be. And recently, I've bought coffee at McDonalds and had to wait 20 to 30 minutes before I could even begin to drink it, it's been so hot. Seems they have learned nothing.
So the punishment for a crime depends not on what you did, but on what others did? If you stole a candy bar, you should be punished for the unknown person who stole a diamond necklace?
I agree about do the crime/do the time. But for your crimes, not someone else's. If it is right to fine someone 100 times the value for shoplifting, it is right whether they are the only shoplifter in town or one of a thousand. Making any punishment depend upon how many others are doing it is unfair.
Taking product from a store without paying for it is unfair too. So boo hoo Mr. Thief. You wanted unfair, you got it. I have no problem making people collectively responsible for the collective activities they participate in.
Then you are an idiot with poor logic. Think decimation (killing of 1 in 10 for actions by the legions members) by the Roman army was a reasonable response? How about the collective punishment of the Jews in the Holocaust? Almost by definition, collective punishment is unfair since the degree of damage done by each individual is significantly different in most cases. I agree that punishment must be sufficiently harsh to be a deterrent, but making it collective is going too far.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
because its unreasonable, thats why!
Just like the woman who sued McDonalds for $16 million and won for a spilled cup of hot coffee.
Or mabey we should start executing shoplifters and given their entirety of personal possesions to the stores. That would show them!
Learn what the f**k really happened to the woman at McDonalds and then stop posting your ignorant moronic response using that as an example. That is a crap example. The woman had to get multiple skin grafts. Why is the internet full of ignorant morons when the info is just one google query away. Stop being lazy.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur