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."

hypocrites

[O('_')O_Bush]

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".

Striesand effect less important than UK Libel law

[karlandtanya]

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.

Good

[Hentes]

And when they will be unable to present evidence that the harassing threats originated from CAB, hit them with a nice wrongful accusation suit.

Re:What's wrong with suing shoplifters?

[AlecC]

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?

Re:What's wrong with suing shoplifters?

[cc_pirate]

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.