Accepting Rossendale’s challenge to clean up their Industry

ITV Exposure programme highlights the need for regulation

Posted on November 1, 2011 by Julie Green-Jones

TV’s Exposure programme has uncovered some terrible practices that we weren’t privy to and brings again the issue of regulation of the enforcement industry to the top of the agenda.
Rossendales certainly doesn’t condone John Boast’s working practices.  We were very shocked and upset at the way he went about his business – it was just unbelievable that a man, who received glowing testimonies from clients and in many cases creditors, conducted himself the way he did.
Managing Director Mike Shang, the board and I have worked tirelessly to create a company that leads the way in the enforcement industry. We are continually looking at ways that we can improve our working practices and be more transparent.  This is something that we’ve placed great emphasis on since Rossendales began in 1972 and as a result the business has grown.

I find the above passage so porous the ship must have already sunk.  With an open mind I invite all readers to scrutinise the above statement and then compare it to the evidence, some supplied by the admirable Pip Clothier Exposure programme, and the three years of this blog trying to get answers from everyone from the Industry to the political masters who devise such unregulated mess. One has to take into consideration that a TV programme can only cover so much in a short period of time.  50 minutes is not enough, but when you consider previous programmes and the lack of improvement, the lack of support to victims by any authority, this whole process is worse than a Pier Show Farce.

This is the reply I made to the owners of the site and the employers of many illegal workers

 

I have ablog which is slanted deliberately, as is this blog, towards getting my voiceheard.  With the Bailiff Industry they, and you and your partner in yourreply here, have clearly indicated a subtlety in manipulation of fact. I.E.never represent true facts and always blame the rogue individual.  Youcould be working for that other oxymoron Military Intelligence.

Had yourindustry the slightest intention of abiding by common law or even statute lawof assault, you would accept Wendy Seaman’s (contribution below) offer of afront to front exchange.  There is the perfect opportunity and I have writtento Lord Bach and Lord Lucas offering my attendance at the House of Lords foryour intended “Love-Inn”.

The factis that you have perfectly innocent victims of your own industry terrified byyour illegal approach to a delicate subject.  My complaint to the IPCC wasechoed in the recent report on the Police and that body’s inability or lack ofauthority to give reasonable satisfaction to injured parties makes this futureand most other future exercises futile.

Lawsalready exists to have you and all your fellow conspirators charged underexisting legislation of employer’s liability, for police to be prosecuted formalfeasance in public office, and the whole damn lot to be charge with fraudand extortion on the innocent victims and here I do not include the mentallysick or the physically disabled.