A man has been sued by one of his employees who had stolen off him. His employee was writeing himself bussiness checks and taking them to the bank and cashing in. When his boss found out he put a sign around his neck saying: 'I am a theif I have stolen' and marched him to the police station. The theif got more than £15'000 off his boss for Human Right's and Humiliation. Basiccly this man has robbed his boss twice but a second time legally. He has also got out of prison and has not had to pay his boss back for stealing off him. I myself think this is a disgrace from the English Court, and that the theif should be put away and his boss should get his money back. Comment on your thoughts of this 'action' that the English law has let slip past them.
When Mr Cremer was alerted to the breach of trust he was furious and arranged for his brother Andrew and two employees to help him tie Gilbertâs hands behind his back when he came into the office. Compensation: Gilbert, 40, then complained that he had been disowned by family and friends following his 'walk of shame'
Compensation: Gilbert, 40, then complained that he had been disowned by family and friends following his 'walk of shame'
They then put him in a van and drove him to Witham town centre and paraded him in front of shoppers on a 350-yard walk to a police station.
The handwritten cardboard sign the men hung around his neck with a piece of string read: âTHIEF. I stole £845. Am on my way to police station.â
I guess this was sort of an extreme punishment. He knew the person's name, and could've just gone to the police with the evidence and let them arrest the man. I agree that the punishment is extreme though, and I don't think he should've been forced to pay much, or at all.
The article also says that the matter was settled outside of court, just because it would've costed him twice as much to go to trial.
So even if the boss didn't put the sign on the man, you would be against him taking the man into the police station?
I have no idea of how you managed to get that out of his message, but I'd say the man should've went to the police with the evidence, then let them fetch the thief.
Also, this is what the thief said:
Gilbert, who lost his job over the theft, admitted writing out the cheque to himself. He claimed he was owed wages and that his boss had been too busy to pay him. Mr Cremer vehemently denied this.
Sorry, you're right, I did miss part of what you said.
He knew the person's name, and could've just gone to the police with the evidence and let them arrest the man.
Why wait? Why give offenders such a luxury? We should be allowed to depend on ourselves as well as the cops. We shouldn't become completely passive while relying on an upper guiding hand such as the police.
Just found an article about this topic: The embezzler said that after being bundled into the van he was "unched and threatened with various tools" and feared he was going to be killed. The boss said no violence was used and that he bound Gilbert�s -the employee's- hands for his own protection. Full article The charges were false imprisonment.
Note that this article is a complete diffrent one but something similar the current one I am discussing is one without violance.
We shouldn't become completely passive while relying on an upper guiding hand such as the police
as I have always said what do we do for the police? Pay there wages, turn in crooks, help them out what do they do for us? Pull us over, give us tickets, arrest us, let theives sue us. Police are a disgrace now-a-days in England they might aswell let kindergardeners take over the police force
Well, surely quite some time had passed since the theft, so a little longer wouldn't really make much of a difference.
We should be allowed to depend on ourselves as well as the cops.
I guess, but I don't think we should be allowed to punish thieves ourselves, especially if we'd break the law ourselves in doing so. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that. Sure, hanging a sign around his neck might not have been as severe as stealing, but it's still against the law, and just because the thief had broken the law didn't mean the boss could do whatever he wanted to him. The law is there for a reason, and even though it might seem unfair sometimes, they can't just run around and make exceptions.
That, and he hadn't been convicted yet. He'd need a trial before he could be considered guilty, and he shouldn't be punished before the trial. And, seeing as how they let the thief walk, I can only assume that he wasn't as guilty as the article made it seem. Still, paying that much was a bit extreme, but as the article says, this was settled out of court, because going to court would've cost him even more than the compensation, so the problem isn't really the law, but the system itself.
We shouldn't become completely passive while relying on an upper guiding hand such as the police.
No, but if you're the one who've been robbed, you're probably quite pissed, and might think the thief deserves worse than what the law says. The police, however, is impartial. Also, it's possible that the thief, or the boss, would've resorted to violence, which is another reason for letting the police handle the matter.
I think it was perfectly acceptable. Extreme punishment would have been chopping off the hand that wrote those checks. Since was only his pride boo hoo.
I have no problem with what the business owner did. But the problem is where do you draw the line? If I owned a paint store and someone stole, should I be able to strip them naked, drench them in the stolen paint, and make them walk to the police station?
Then you have the issue of "innocent before proven guilty." Vigilante justice is a terrible thing when the wrong person is accused. That's why a court of law is the best judicial system.
I think it's ridiculous. The thief deserved what his boss did. I mean, like a previous person said, the only thing damaged was his pride. The guy had no right to sue, and the person that was sued should get his money back.
Yes but the man who robbed the boss was much younger than his boss the boss was around 54 and could of been attacked by the theif so it was for bth or there saftey
