Justice favours the ridiculous
by SynRaptor on Feb.17, 2011, under Angry Rants
I was reading an article the other day about how a guy who stole £845 from his company by writing a company cheque to himself. His boss then found out and frog marched him to the nearest Police Station with a sign hung around his neck saying “THIEF I STOLE £845. AM ON MY WAY TO POLICE STATION”. Sound fair enough? I think so. But subsequently what happened afterwards was that the employee has turned around and successfully sued the boss for £11,000 for humiliation and hurt feelings. This is a fucking disgrace.
How the fuck can someone steal from a family business in the first place? You have to have a level of trust in order to have access and authority to write cheques from a company cheque book so doing so for personal gain is a massive sign of betrayal. Betrayal is possibly the worst trait of humanity as it goes against everything that makes you human.
But I suppose its not the act that he stole which enrages me, it’s the fact that he’s managed to sue for hurt feelings. That is PATHETIC. It’s the same as the burglars who successfully sued because they fell through someone’s roof, it’s like someone in the justice department fancied being a bit of an iconoclast and decided to mix it up a bit by ruling in favour of people who break the law. How can any sane person rule in favour of someone who had £845 fraudulently taken from them MORE WRONG than the c**t who actually did take it, and then got a bit embarrassed?
In Dante's Inferno, thieves were tortured by serpents, that would be more fitting of a £11,000 case
Secondly, if that guy was afraid of being humiliated, then suing would only attract media attention and then everyone who watches the news is now aware of it, which is surely more humiliating than just being witnessed by the people in the street. If people like myself who are now AWARE of this story means more people like me know about it, surely that’s more humiliating. So by inference and frankly greed by leeching a corrupt system, this twat has made exponentially more people think he’s a complete dick for doing what he did, and even more so that he’s £11,000 better off as a result. Plus £11k is a bit much for simple embarrassment. If he was stripped naked, sprayed with silage and was forced to walk in a trench of human egestion to the nearest police station, then maybe he would have a case. Wearing a placard of cardboard around your neck and walking to a police station doesn’t warrant such a huge windfall.
It is my sincerest hope that this guy never finds employment ever again and is denied benefits because people know his face now and know what he did, so he’ll have to make that £11,000 last a lifetime.
I do feel for the boss in this sitaution as I also read reports that he’s had to sell his house in order to fund the settlement. It’s ridiculous and it makes me sick.
“I wanted to fight the case but I was told it would be cheaper to settle out of court.
“I am disappointed and disgusted with the legal system.
“I now have to sell my house to pay for this. A guy stole from me and I now have to sell my house to pay him.”
He added: “Financially I regret it but morally I don’t. I think it was the right thing to do.”
The court argued that he’s taken the law into his own hands and will not tolerate vigilantes. Again, I feel this is a very short sighted approach. Are you telling me therefore that every single incident of a citizens arrest is wrong as they are taking the law into their own hands? What if someone had acosted Michael Ryan in Hungerford before he shot loads of people, is that an example of a vigilante knowing that they could have saved people’s lives? I’m not expecting people to be like Batman or Spiderman, but at the same time having a concern for the innocent pays no dividends when we have a judicial system which tolerates deviance.
This for me is just another example whereby the law has failed honest citizens and favoured criminals and why I firmly believe there is no such thing as justice.
February 17th, 2011 on 6:17 pm
I couldn’t agree more, this is a shoddy ruling and even if you think it’s the right ruling, it’s for a ridiculous sum of money. I hadn’t heard of this, but now I have and now I know this thief is a dick and I have now seen the pictures that have “embarrassed” him. Therefore, as you quite rightly pointed out, surely leading him to more embarrassment. Should he sue the media now for embarrassing him further, or maybe he should sue me for looking at the picture? hmmm
Also, I believe strongly in causality. You shouldn’t blame others for the repercussions of your actions. And although the business owner could have gone about this in a different (arguably a ‘better’) way, it stands to fact that the business owner wouldn’t have had to do anything if the thief hadn’t stolen from him in the first place. That’s my thoughts on the matter. It’s like a documentary I watched the other day of people throwing stones at soldiers and then wondering why they were getting shot at. Really?
I’d love to hear Ette’s thoughts on this debate (reference http://synystergraves.com/rants/ettes-world/if-you-cant-say-anything-intelligent/) lol
February 17th, 2011 on 7:47 pm
If I were dictator of the country, I would leave most things as they are. I believe in letting people run their lives as they see fit. But in this I would interfere. If I had unlimited powers, this is what would happen:
The thieving pikey would be forced to donate a kidney to be sold to the NHS to help generate funds to pay back the 11k and the 845 he stole. All his posessions would be sold to help pay things back. Then, he would be sold into slave labour, with the money it took to buy him being used to compensate his former boss and pay for a tattoo on his forehead that says ‘THEIF’.
We could use him for medical science. In fact, why not just drown him, that way, all his organs could be harvested and put to good use. Seriously, this giuy doesn’t deserve oxygen. Just kill him and the World will be a better place.
February 17th, 2011 on 9:47 pm
I’ll back you as dictator Bear! But Kudos to the business owner above for “originality of punishment” I give him 10/10, I think he should be rewarded for it!
February 18th, 2011 on 5:42 am
I firstly would have hired a better lawyer. Secondly I would most certainly NOT have settled out of court, lets be clear this was NOT a court judgement. Whilst I dont agree with him marching the guy with a sign on his back, it’s fair to say he didn’t have a gun to the guys head so there was an element of choice in the matter.
Its really quite sad that most employment lawyers today encourage the employer to settle out of court, the balance of justice is distorted dramatically by this. I would have personally as his lawyer have argued that at this point his contract of employment has been terminated and therefore has not happened within the remit of his employment. He can’t claim liable as the accusation was true, so a deformation case wouldn’t hold up. As a judge I’d factor in the free will argument and tell the dirty thief to “jog on”