Thief Frogmarched to Police wearing sign of shame

reply to post by ANOK

OK. Can you be a little more specific? 'What a crock' really doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion now does it?

Oh I think it does.....when I said "what a crock"...I meant everything you said in that particular post, was ......a crock.

I think that a great many people that work for an hourly wage would also agree with me, the guy that this story refers to wasn't running some multi-million pound corporation, he was running a small flooring company employing a hand full of staff, the guy that stole £845 from him was earning up to £1000 per week, not a bad hourly wage eh?

But he wanted a bit more, so he forged a cheque and scammed his boss out of £845 because he had run up a few bills.....unfortunately he got caught......and bless his cotton socks he had his feelings hurt!


But it's okay now because his nasty capitalist boss who paid him £1000 per week has given him a nice £5000 bonus for his poor hurt feelings.

So in your world everything is as it should be.......the nasty capitalist boss has paid the poor thieving employee £5000 because the poor thieving employee couldn't make ends meet on £1000 per week and had to lower himself to stealing a little bit more money.......viva la revolution!

Classic example here of why in our current culture we have so much crime - it pays!

If the only reward for crime were a bullet then I guarantee there would be a lot less of it.

For the hearts who don't think that theft is worth a death sentence think again, theft costs us all in the end - even if the money or items are insured the loss causes premiums to rise for everyone, we have to arrest, hold and try them all at taxpayer expense, then rehabilitate them afterward.

Crime will continue to run rampant until we go back to the old ways of people being able to defend their property with force.

I care not if you are hungry, your kids are sick, or your father didn't show you enough love, or perhaps you are strung out on drugs - don't want to die, don't come trying to steal things in the night.

reply to post by rival


I think that Argylls point was the employer has been cleared in a criminal court yet he still has to compensate the thief in a civil court.Sort of throws out the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.Guilty despite being proven innocent for the employer.

Originally posted by glen200376
reply to post by rival

 

I think that Argylls point was the employer has been cleared in a criminal court yet he still has to compensate the thief in a civil court.Sort of throws out the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.Guilty despite being proven innocent for the employer.

Give that man a cigar!

Originally posted by glen200376
reply to post by rival

 

I think that Argylls point was the employer has been cleared in a criminal court yet he still has to compensate the thief in a civil court.Sort of throws out the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.Guilty despite being proven innocent for the employer.

Okay, I get it now. It brings to mind the O.J. Simpson fiasco...same thing happened with him.
And actually I agree with the sentiment. The business owner should have been tried for
a crime and that should have been the end of it....but like another poster put it we live in
a blame and sue-happy society where you sue anyone for just about anything and often
make bank from it.

I don't think the thief should have gotten restitution at all for his embarrassment. But you still
don't want regular citizens running around like Judge Dredd, accusing, trying, and sentencing
criminals....let the system punish criminals. The sign around the neck, or a beating, or public
humiliation constitutes punishment.

reply to post by Argyll


Well that is your opinion and that's fine. But just posting 'that is a crock' with nothing to support the claim is simply an insult. I'm surprised you haven't been hit with a 'one liner'.

I was not really picking on the one guy, just the whole concept of capitalism, and how it is theft and has been since it replaced feudalism in the 1700's.

No one is frog marching the capitalist system to jail with a 'thief' sign around it's neck.

The guy should not have stolen from his boss, but his boss should not have done what he did either. I simply have less sympathy for 'the boss'. Call me bias, because I am.

Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmm I would call the employer a thief. All capitalist employers are thieves, protected by the law.

When you work for an hourly wage, you are not paid the full amount for your labour. Workers are paid less than what they produce in order for the capitalist to make profit. What the worker produces over what they are paid for is called 'surplus value'. That is what is considered labour exploitation.

Labour creates wealth, not the capitalist owners and bosses. We pay for their wealth with our labour.

The capitalists have been thieving from the working class for 250+ years.

Mark Gilbert deserved all he got.

You do realise that without those capitalists pretty much everybody would be without employement right? employers are the foundation of our economy. I am a small business owner and I can tell you that every employee needs to carry their weight or the employers pockets will be empty in no-time. thats a BIG risk you take as an employer because you need garuantees of enough work being available (this we do NOT have) DOnt you think its fair that the employer also gets rewarded for the risk they take?

Not talking about the big humongous corporations. Those i'd describe as white-board mafia

Originally posted by faceoff85
You do realise that without those capitalists pretty much everybody would be without employement right?

That is nonsense, or to use a more popular phrase, What a crock! Do you think everyone was unemployed before capitalism? Without the capitalists the workers could simply take over the use of the means of production.

Chrysler Workers Urge Obama to Support Ownership Push

Capitalism needs workers, workers do not need capitalism.

Capitalism took away the peoples autonomy, and their skills and trades. It made us reliant on the state, and the division of labour turned workers into wage slaves.

reply to post by ANOK


We are slaves of society, not of capitalism. To make it worse, we are making ourselves into slaves. Its our, albeit somewhat aritifcial, craving for the newest car, gadgets, house or whatever makes you tick which
makes us into slaves. If we'd be happy owning LESS we'd all be working LESS as wel.

The employer-employee relationship has existed for millenia. When in ages past an employee would be caught stealing, they'd be in far deeper problems. For this concept to be turned on the victim instead of the perp is actually showing what IS wrong with this system.

Again I do discern between regular small-medium sized company's and large corporations or multinationals. Those I do see as the poison of this planet because of their inmense influence on politics in combination with a selfish and twisted agenda

Originally posted by faceoff85
reply to post by ANOK

 

We are slaves of society, not of capitalism. To make it worse, we are making ourselves into slaves. Its our, albeit somewhat aritifcial, craving for the newest car, gadgets, house or whatever makes you tick which
makes us into slaves. If we'd be happy owning LESS we'd all be working LESS as wel.

Yeah but that has all come about because of capitalism, not because of 'society'. Capitalists create the desire and people simply fall for it. Emotional advertising. Manipulation of our thoughts in order to create desire. In some ways we are slaves to society, but for the sake of this debate I was sticking to economics.

I'm not sure about working less, most people just make enough to get by these days.

The employer-employee relationship has existed for millenia. When in ages past an employee would be caught stealing, they'd be in far deeper problems. For this concept to be turned on the victim instead of the perp is actually showing what IS wrong with this system.

Hmmm no really it hasn't. Prior to the 1750's in feudal Europe most people were autonomous farmers, traders, artisans and craftsmen. In the 1750's, or so, new laws were enacted. One law allowed land owners to sell off plots of land to anyone who could afford them, the other was the inclosure law. The inclosure laws allowed the new land owners to deny use of their land to the 'commoners' (non-land owners). This forced the commoners into the towns to work 'jobs'. Wealthy land owners took advantage of this, and exploited the commoners in their mills and factories. This created the 'working class' and the labour movement and socialism. The socialists called the system of the private ownership of the means of production, capitalism.

The Inclosure or Enclosure Acts were a series of United Kingdom Acts of Parliament which enclosed open fields and common land in the country. They removed previously existing rights of local people to carry out activities in these areas, such as cultivation, cutting hay, grazing animals or using other resources such as small timber, fish, and turf. "Inclosure" is an old or formal spelling of the word now more usually spelled "enclosure": both spellings are pronounced play /ɨŋˈkloʊʒər/.

Inclosure Acts

Again I do discern between regular small-medium sized company's and large corporations or multinationals. Those I do see as the poison of this planet because of their inmense influence on politics in combination with a selfish and twisted agenda

But it's not the businesses per se, it is the system of private ownership. The system that allows private owners to live from the labour of others. Not all capitalists do that obviously, but as long as we have that system there will always be corporations, and massive companies that answer to nobody. I understand most people who start businesses don't do it for the sole purpose of making a living from others labour, but in the big picture that is what capitalism is. Capitalism can never be made to not influence politics, and have twisted and selfish agendas. How do you propose we do that? The very system of capitalism allows people, by law, to do that. Laws btw mostly written by capitalists.

The only way to stop that from happening is worker ownership. No more people making massive wealth from the labour of others, that allows them the economic power to control society. If people are more equally wealthy, no one has the economic power to control you. The less people can control you the more free you are. We don't have to have complete equality, the inequality of capitalism is extreme, we just need to narrow the gap between rich and poor a little. That gap has continuously widened as the wealth is ever more sucked upwards into fewer and fewer hands.