It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boss Forced To Sell Home For 'Thief's' Payout

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Just read this article, on sky news. Basically, in late 2008, an employer found that one of his employees, whom he'd trusted to have access to the company cheque book, had abused this, and written himself a cheque for £845. Mr. Cremer, the employer, reacted by tying the man's hands, writing out a sign that said "THIEF. I Stole £845 AM ON MY WAY To Police Station", hanging it around his neck, and marching him to the police station. The thief, Mr. Gilbert, was later cautioned for the theft, and Mr. Cremer faced a charge of false imprisonment, though this charge was later dropped.

However, the case didn't end there, as the thief decided to take civil action against his former employer, for the "stress, humiliation and trauma" he suffered. Today, it was decided that the employer must pay £5,000, as well as £29,000 in legal costs. This was an out of court settlement- Mr. Cremer had wanted to fight the case in court, but quickly discovered it would be too expensive. As a result of this judgement, the new defendant is going to have to sell his house.

To me, this is craziness. I can see the argument that Mr. Cremer perhaps over-reacted, however, I can understand his anger, and the thief should face the consequences of his actions- they are only self-inflicted. I don't really understand why being embarrased warrants £5,000 in compensation. It just seems to me like this case was used as an excuse by lawyers/socilitors to earn a nice packet. £29,000 in legal fees, for an out of court case, is ridiculous, and just goes to show how the legal system can be easily abused. I appreciate that this is his own doing, he didn't have to react so extremely. However, talk about a totally disproportionate punishment, totally compounded by the fact that the actual criminal got only a caution.
edit on 16-2-2011 by ScepticalBeliever because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ScepticalBeliever
 


Unlucky guy, but he did over react quite a bit. Where did this take place, in the UK?
As for the legal system, its beyond repair. We need a 'flood' to take place, a new leaf. Its the only way forward, in this messed up planet.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by naeem11111
 


Yes, it was Essex/UK. I agree, he did overreact, and he should have just rang the police, and left it to them. It's just the level of punishments dished out that bothers me. If criminals were forced to pay this level of fine, instead of going to prison, I think that'd be a much bigger deterant (Not for the more extreme cases, of course). £34,000 for not even committing a crime- imagine how much an actual crime would be worth



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I think you'll find that he doesn't have to sell his house he's just "bigging" it up to get publicity or sky are exagerrating for effect. Here's another version from a slightly less sensationalist news outlet
Link

Also he did not have the right to make the alleged thief (innocent until proven guilty) walk through the town with a sign around his neck. We have a police force and we have courts. However pissed off he was he did not have the right.

Deserves everything he gets as does the thief.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ScepticalBeliever
 


In my eyes the boss screwed up badly.
The boss should have filled his employees pockets with silver and gold.
And then pushed him in the Thames!!



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Thoriumisbest
 


Whether or not he had to sell his house is irrelevant, the title of my thread was copied from Sky- that's the only reason I chose it. Like I said, it's to do with the proportion of the "crimes". He was found not guilty of any crime, and the individual who was found guilty of the crime received next to no punishment. You say they both deserve everything they get, the thief got next to nothing- is that fair? That's the issue.
edit on 16-2-2011 by ScepticalBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
He didn't take it far enough. The original action was amusing and well-deserved, the false-imprisonment was probably an appropriate charge, so all things were going as expected and fair up to that point.

Now, when the thief decided to sue him, he should have acted more aggressively. In the electronic age, alibis are easy. ************* I had to delete all of my more specific advice there, but suffice to say, that it doesn't always take an attorney to make a lawsuit go away.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Quite funny really because if you Google this story every other newsoutlet says £13,000 costs whereas Sky went with £30,000. Trying to shout out a story across a noisy newsroom maybe. Fox = Sky = crap.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
You are not allowed to tie somebody up,its against the law.Especially for a small theft like that.The guy would be caught the same day if he just reported the bad check to the police.That is the sign of a mentally deranged person to tie somebody up like that .All banks have fraud protection against that anyway,his bank would refund him the money.Shame on him.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ScepticalBeliever
 


Sorry but the house sale is relevant as it makes for a very emotive and arresting headline. Also if Sky got that bit wrong you can't really rely on the rest of their story.

The thief claimed he was owed wages and that he only took what was owed to him. He also claims he's unable to get work because of all the publicity. I don't think the Sky version mentioned that 3 men tied his hands behind his back and manhandled him into the back of a van.

I'm not blaming you for going with the Sky version just pointing out that every story is usually more complex than it is presented and that we should acknowledge that sometimes people need to let the proper authorities deal with things. Vendettas, feuds and kangaroo courts not to mention vigilante justice are not what I want to see in the UK.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScepticalBeliever
reply to post by naeem11111
 


Yes, it was Essex/UK. I agree, he did overreact, and he should have just rang the police, and left it to them. It's just the level of punishments dished out that bothers me. If criminals were forced to pay this level of fine, instead of going to prison, I think that'd be a much bigger deterant (Not for the more extreme cases, of course). £34,000 for not even committing a crime- imagine how much an actual crime would be worth


It wasn't "punishment"dished out by the legal system. He agreed to it. He was immensely stupid once and perhaps again by agreeing to the settlement. He knew what he had done and probably was worried that once the truth came out, it would go much worse for him.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
ha no deleted it because I am reading about 10 posts at the same time - indeed there is more to this story than what I originall thought.
edit on 16-2-2011 by facchino because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by facchino
 


I take it you didn't read the whole thread? He did not lose his house. One man cashed a cheque the other committed assault.

Seems fair to me.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Thoriumisbest
 


Hmm, well I've read the other article on The Guardian- and you're right, it's conflicting. On sky news TV, he did specifically say that previous articles had under-exaggerated the costs he will be expected to pay (the guardian article is from yesterday, whereas the sky article is hours old). I've read quite a few other articles, as well as the one you linked, and I see no reference to him not being paid, though?

Forgot to add, it was his own words, from the sky interview, that he would have to sell his house. Maybe he means re-mortgage, I did think that at the time.
edit on 16-2-2011 by ScepticalBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I think public humiliation is a great recourse and should be used more often as should the laws of 'natural consequences' though admittedly, that can be dicey and is best left to those who have already been convicted, or who are partaking in outdoor/wilderness activities and must 'make nice' with and work within the confines of what mama-nature throws at them.
edit on 16-2-2011 by LadySkadi because: clarify the pt.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ScepticalBeliever
 


Sorry for delay but couldn't find my source.
Here it is



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Hell yes, I'm all for consequences and humiliation, as are the police. They now publicise convictions on websites and even post leaflets with pictures. However I do think it's probably better after a guilty verdict as there seems less chance of error.

The guy should have just called the police. It's not like the perpetrator was violent or a threat. He just watched too many Clint Eastwood movies.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Thoriumisbest
 


I see- well, it is peculiar. I've read about 6 different sites articles, from both 2008, and current, including ones from The Guardian, Sky, The Sun, The Daily Mail, and none mention him not being paid, or doing it because he was owed wages (Yes, I know some of those may not be the most reliable). Someone's journalism is clearly off. Oh well, serves me right for trusting anything I read, I suppose. Can we treat this story as a hypothetical case study?


ETA: In The Mirror article, it even specifically says he admitted he was wrong (the thief), and he was ashamed. That doesn't really tie in with the not being paid, either. A few also mention he earnt £1,000 a week, so £845 doesn't really balance up- unless he was a week behind in wages, but I'm not sure being a week behind warrants such action. Although, I realise that is a grey area- maybe he had bills to pay, etc.
edit on 16-2-2011 by ScepticalBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ScepticalBeliever
 


I don't think it matters that the initial news story may have been wrong. Like you say it's the situation that is at the crux of it. How ordinary people respond when they discover a crime against them and the consequences to them if they over-react.

It's like that guy a few years ago who shot and killed a burglar after suffering a series of burglaries. If I recall correctly he was convicted because the guy was shot in the back while trying to run away. He was convicted and sent to prison amidst huge public outcries.

The police have always maintained that any response should be measured and appropriate.

That Granny last week who battered smash and grab thieves in the High St with her handbag would never be charged with assault. Yet she arguably should have been because she was dishing out vigilante justice. Wonder what would have happened if she had a brick in the bag.

I enjoyed the debate. Thanks



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Thoriumisbest
 


You're right, that's the key issue, criminals' rights/vigilantism, and it really is a tricky one- though, I think anyone with a heart was on the grannies side, in that specific case! No worries- thanks for remaining civil, and your constructive input. I typically consider sky as a very accurate source of information (slightly niave, perhaps), next time I will have to double-check.
edit on 16-2-2011 by ScepticalBeliever because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join