Thief contractor, must be paid?
- Thread starter TubbyFunster
- Start date
Did you put the last supper through the books as well?
Nah I got Judas to do that, he's my fall guy
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
R
Retired_Accountant
What "debate". All I've seen from you is claims that you are the most honest businessman in Britain, and pontification about others without the slightest evidence or experience to back it up.
I have put MY views based on 40 years experience in business in a profession which deals with legal issues daily, and damn near as long serving as a magistrate. Exactly what relevent experience, qualifications, or knowledge are you basing your statements on?
I have yet to see any rational or reasoned argument from you. If you would care to ntry I will be happy to respond, but your last post merely demonstrates that it is YOU that is unable to debate and resorting to attempts to put others down.
Upvote
0
Are you going out of your way to get the record for the most threads locked down by taking them off topic and then insulting other posters simply because they do not agree with you? Can I suggest that either YOU follow your signature, OR change it.
THIS THREAD is about a cleaner who the customer believes stole from them. This thus damages the reputation of the business who employed the cleaner and supplied the service. The business must do what it can to repair their reputation.
NOW as an employer, if I had an employee who was in dire straights, and was desperate, I would MUCH RATHER they came to me for help, rather than steal from my customers. This is not a Dickenson attitude but a practical one.
Theft is a criminal offence. Anyone can report a crime. It would be very dangerous in my opinion for the OP to not report the crime, but instead ask for the tape (evidence) and keep it to "blackmail" the cleaner to not put up any fuss if they don't get paid for their work.
As for paying them, or not, I would want to know more about the whole thing before paying or not.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've actually given one heck of a lot of reasoned debate here and explained why I've said what I've said. You just lash out at anyone who disagrees with you. That's not debate.
I'm going to go and play with my new telescope now and resist the temptation to lower myself to having a go at you.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
E
Esk247
Can everyone PLEASE put their willies away for just 5 frickin' minutes!
My dads bigger than all your dads put together so hush!
Allegations of theft are to be dealt with carefully.
Here you go:
Employment law sets out the procedures to follow to make sure that an employee is dismissed fairly. It's advisable to wait until you have carried out a fair process that complies with the law before you report a suspect to the police
If you decide to dismiss an employee, remember that if you don't report them to the police they will have a clean record and could offend again in their next job.
http://business.wales.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=5001543528&site=230&type=RESOURCES
My dads bigger than all your dads put together so hush!
Allegations of theft are to be dealt with carefully.
Here you go:
Employment law sets out the procedures to follow to make sure that an employee is dismissed fairly. It's advisable to wait until you have carried out a fair process that complies with the law before you report a suspect to the police
If you decide to dismiss an employee, remember that if you don't report them to the police they will have a clean record and could offend again in their next job.
http://business.wales.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=5001543528&site=230&type=RESOURCES
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Does it make a difference if the cleaner was self employed? Whilst it is clearly good advice to carry out a fair process and look into it, its not dismissing an employee, it is more no longer using a self employed contractor.
Upvote
0
E
Esk247
Oh good point, I didn't think to check that one.
I'd just not deal with the contractor again and report to the Police to investigate. Always report to the Police when their is theft, this person could be stealing from dozens of places and could be wanted for lots of small crimes.
It is up to the Police to deal with reports of criminal activity and for them to investigate it.
I cannot find much out on this apart from an American link unfortunately:
Meehan, 27, of the 100 block of Ramblewood Parkway, was arrested at 12:30 a.m. on April 3 for stealing about $17,000 in jewelry from a home in the 3800 block of Saxony Drive while he was employed there as an independent contractor between Jan. 2 and March 19, police said. He was released pending a court hearing, police said.
http://www.southjerseylocalnews.com...ral_record/news/doc4f7c683d97033707625770.txt
Upvote
0
R
Retired_Accountant
Oh I get it now, silly me, of course people are allowed to post personal insults about me, but if I reply then it's ME that;'s taking the thread off topic.
Why didnt't I realise that .
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
I will admit to being more than concerned that a "magistrate" treats theft so lightly - no wonder this country is screwed.
I will also admit to pinching a 2p eraser off my local shop when I was young. My Mum frogmarched me back to the shop, made me apologise and then the local bobby gave me a right royal rolliking - I can honestly say I have never stolen anything else in my life.
I will also admit to pinching a 2p eraser off my local shop when I was young. My Mum frogmarched me back to the shop, made me apologise and then the local bobby gave me a right royal rolliking - I can honestly say I have never stolen anything else in my life.
Upvote
0
Oops I disagreed with you. That's all, and didn't warrant your return posts.
Is disagreeing with you a personal insult now?
Upvote
0
R
Retired_Accountant
No, but comments like this by you -
and comments like this by kulture -
ARE.
Upvote
0
R
Retired_Accountant
So you don't think that we should bother about getting all the facts before jumping to conclusions then ?
Presumably like some of the other contributors, you don't believe in addressing the causative factors which drive some people to crime either - merely lock them up and throw away the key the first time they make a mistake?
I bet you'd have had a great time in Salem burning witches.
Perhaps every crminal should be dealt with harshly. Let's start by crushing your car every time you stray 1mph over the speed limit. How about we confiscate your house if you're found to have underdeclared your tax liability by a penny?
I'm shocked by the truly vindictive nature of many of the comments made.
On the face of it ot appears that a theft took place. No one however has spoken to the suspect. No one has bothered to find out why. The items allegedly stolen are hardly high value a pair of trainers, a cutlery set and a pack of napkins is hardly the crown jewels. More importantly they are not the kind of thing an organised experience thief would take.
We don't know if this lady has a record of theft, or, if this is a first offence. That fact would obviously make a huge difference to how it should be treated. To me the rather eclectic list of items taken indicates spur of the moment weakness, not a planned well thought out, premeditated intention to profit.
Is it right that someones life should be ruined, which would likely be the result of a conviction, for the sake of one moment of weakness? Is there anyone who can honestly say that they too have never had a similar lapse? Anyone who says they havent is, in my view, a liar.
How many would realise the check out girl at Tescos had given them £10 too much change and actually fgo back to tell her? How many have newver, ever, broken the speed limit (which is an offence which could put others lives at risk) ? How many have never overcharged a customer, or "back pocketted" takings (defrauding the Revenue) ?
One thing that does seem clear is that there are a lot of contributors whose attitude shows me that they should never be called up for jury duty as their comments display a terrible degree of bias and willingness to prejudge.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
There you go again!
You're belittling people who don't agree with you. Some of your comments are really quite harsh you know?
You're making some pretty strong comments about others but you seem to have a problem when people disagree with what you're saying.
Upvote
0
R
Retired_Accountant
I call it as I see it.
Disagree by all means - but if you do then try to justify your differences, explain them.
You say some of my comments are "quite harsh" - such as ?
Dont you think that involving the police in such a minor "offence" without bothering to find out the full facts is equally harsh ?
Have you any experience of what being arrested, dragged to a claustrophobic custody suite, questioned by a couple of neandertal PC's, and threatened with a criminal record which might mean you never work again and end up losing your home, is like?
Do you have any idea of the suicide rate amongst people awaitng trial for quite minor offences is?
Add to that the FACT that if tried before a magistrates court your chances of acquittal are almost zero because, unfortunately, there are a lot of magistrates out there who simply believe that the police always get it right, and you might understand why I believe that more care should be taken long before the police are involved.
Upvote
0
The woman was caught on CCTV leaving the client's premises with somebody else's property.
I'm struggling to see where you are coming from on this liberal tirade.
It may be that a couple of hours in a cell with two coppers berating her might prevent her ever even thinking about doing it again. That wouldn't be a bad thing.
You do seem to have a problem with the police too, which is a strange position for a Magistrate. Do you approach each case with this attitude or do you wait for the full facts to be presented before automatically assuming the police are neanderthals?
I'm struggling to see where you are coming from on this liberal tirade.
It may be that a couple of hours in a cell with two coppers berating her might prevent her ever even thinking about doing it again. That wouldn't be a bad thing.
You do seem to have a problem with the police too, which is a strange position for a Magistrate. Do you approach each case with this attitude or do you wait for the full facts to be presented before automatically assuming the police are neanderthals?
Upvote
0
R
Retired_Accountant
Actually the OP does not indicate that the CCTV showed her leaving the premises. Removing them from the premises as opposed to simply moving them is, of course, an essential element in a theft.
It is not a "liberal tirade", merely a defence of the right of evveryone to be presumed innocent until PROVEN gullty.
Do I have a "problem" with the police? Let's just say that I'm not stupid enough to believe everything a police officer says. I've seen far too many caught out lying.
For example, only a couple of years ago an officer swore on oath that he had seen defendant A driving vehicle registration B along a road on 15th May. He produced his pocket book with his allegedly contemporanious notes in it as proof.
Now vehicle B was in fact owned by A. However, I had of course seen the exhibits bundle before the trial so knew what was coming. After going through the officer's evidence in great detail and the officer again confirming that he had personally seen the defendant A in the car B on 15th May the defence counsel produced the registration document for vehicle B - proving that it was first registered in the UK as a new vehicle on 1st July that year, and that at the time the officer swore he had seen it, it was in fact a pile of parts in a factory in Germany and the registration number ha never been issued by the DVLA.
The fact that it was then bought by the defendant A clearly showed that the officer had fabricated his evidence after 1st July to "fit up" the defendant.
This is just one of far too many such instances I have encountered.
On another occasion an officer claimed to have been visiting her sick elderly father when she witnessed an incident. She even told us how she had prepared her fathers breakfast for him etc. The defence then produced her fathers death certificate proving that on the day in question her father had been dead for 2 years.
Therefore in my experience blindly believing evidence just because it's given by a police officer is dangerous. In the average police station there are probably as many crooks in the canteen as there are in the cells.
It is not a "liberal tirade", merely a defence of the right of evveryone to be presumed innocent until PROVEN gullty.
Do I have a "problem" with the police? Let's just say that I'm not stupid enough to believe everything a police officer says. I've seen far too many caught out lying.
For example, only a couple of years ago an officer swore on oath that he had seen defendant A driving vehicle registration B along a road on 15th May. He produced his pocket book with his allegedly contemporanious notes in it as proof.
Now vehicle B was in fact owned by A. However, I had of course seen the exhibits bundle before the trial so knew what was coming. After going through the officer's evidence in great detail and the officer again confirming that he had personally seen the defendant A in the car B on 15th May the defence counsel produced the registration document for vehicle B - proving that it was first registered in the UK as a new vehicle on 1st July that year, and that at the time the officer swore he had seen it, it was in fact a pile of parts in a factory in Germany and the registration number ha never been issued by the DVLA.
The fact that it was then bought by the defendant A clearly showed that the officer had fabricated his evidence after 1st July to "fit up" the defendant.
This is just one of far too many such instances I have encountered.
On another occasion an officer claimed to have been visiting her sick elderly father when she witnessed an incident. She even told us how she had prepared her fathers breakfast for him etc. The defence then produced her fathers death certificate proving that on the day in question her father had been dead for 2 years.
Therefore in my experience blindly believing evidence just because it's given by a police officer is dangerous. In the average police station there are probably as many crooks in the canteen as there are in the cells.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
All this is mildly interesting, but nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. The simple matter of not using a cleaner again because the customer has cctv of her taking their goods.
I note that you have not replied to any of my real points, regarding reporting this to the police (which you said the OP was not entitled to do), nor taking and withholding the evidence (which you recommended early on).
I am sorry if you regard this as a personal insult. Clearly you have a different definition than I. None of what I have posted on this thread has been intended as an insult.
I note that you have not replied to any of my real points, regarding reporting this to the police (which you said the OP was not entitled to do), nor taking and withholding the evidence (which you recommended early on).
I am sorry if you regard this as a personal insult. Clearly you have a different definition than I. None of what I have posted on this thread has been intended as an insult.
Upvote
0
Absolutely correct, so will you explain why you recommended not paying the cleaner in post 6 and recommended taking the CCTV tape to keep to defend this action?
Upvote
0
E
Esk247
Sorry, but you should take this up through the appropriate channels and make your complaints in your own time. The thread was about an allegation of theft and allegations of theft must be dealt with by the Police. They will decide on the evidence presented and will decide if it warrants further investigation.
Should the contractor be paid? Yes.
If the person was an employee you could use the system shown in my example in a previous post.
Upvote
0
E
Esk247
Removal of evidence?
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/cctv_code_of_practice_html/8_looking.html
Recorded material should be stored in a way that maintains the integrity of the image. This is to ensure that the rights of individuals recorded by the CCTV system are protected and that the material can be used as evidence in court. To do this you need to carefully choose the medium on which the images are stored, and then ensure that access is restricted. You may wish to keep a record of how the images are handled if they are likely to be used as evidence in court. Finally, once there is no reason to retain the recorded images, they should be deleted. Exactly when you decide to do this will depend on the purpose for using CCTV.
Upvote
0
Oh come on the police are much to busy looking after the vested interests of their lords and masters to bother with such trivia.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
R
Retired_Accountant
My recommendation was that the CCTV be retained as evidence for use in a CIVIL court should the cleaner object to the deduction of monies.
In a civil court which operates on the balance of probabilities the CCTV would provide useful circumstantial evidence.
However, in a criminal court which rightly operates on the prcipal of proof beynd reasonable doubt it would not, on its own, be sufficient proof.
Now, let's get something very clear, in law there is no compulsion to report a crime. (other than money laundering offenses if you happen to work in the regulated sector).
From the OPs post it seems clear that the victim (the restraunt) are only bothered about being paid as they have made no effort to involve the police. Without their cooperation any report to the police will go exactly nowhere.
Also of course the OP needs to consider the implications fgor himself. If the matter is reported to the police and a criminal investigation is launched with the possibility of a trial resulting, then quite simply it would be illegal for him to pay the restraunt. Any such payment could be portrayed as an attempt to pervert the course of justice by influencing one parties testimony.
This matter is, in my view, far better dealt with as a civil matter.
Upvote
0
R
Retired_Accountant
Actually it doiesnt have to be dealt with by the police. There is no compusion to report it as it does not constitute a money laundering offence and neither the restraunt or the OP work in the regulated sector.
Upvote
0
Hang on a mo, when I suggested this to be the case at the start you lambasted me . Why the change of heart?
some of the stuff posted in this htread is quite laughable TBh, it has made me smile no end.
Upvote
0
"No law says you have to report a crime to the police or give evidence. But remember, by coming forward you could bring a criminal to justice. You could also stop the same thing happening to others."
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/VictimsOfCrime/DG_181647
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/VictimsOfCrime/DG_181647
Upvote
0
Just in case you have forgotten it, this is your first post in this thread. In full and unedited.
Here you say that the money should be deducted, and the customer re-imbursed. NOW you say that this thread has a lynch mob mentality and the cleaner's side should be sought before any decision is made, and that it would be wrong to re-imburse the customer as it could (by some enormous stretch) be construed as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Do you wonder why people have questioned you.
Upvote
0
R
Retired_Accountant
Actually what I said was - "There is nothing illegal in reimbursing a customer because of an employyes actions, even if those actions are illegal. Similarly there is noithing illegal in not reporting a crime."
THAT was in response to the suggestion of reimbursing the restraunt, no mention of police involvement. As I have made very clear the situation changes once the police become involved.
Maybe you can explain how my comment constitutes "lambasting you"?
Perhaps you could also detail what you consisider to be "quite laughable" and your qualification for drawing such a conclusion. After all we might all like to share the joke.
Upvote
0
Whether this cleaner was employed or self-employed is something that would be helpful to determine, and the absence of contracts won't help that. It doesn't matter what label the parties decided to put on this if the status is in practice determined to be "employed".
If they are employed for the purposes of employment law, a dismissal would be fair but it would certainly help if the proper disciplinary procedures were followed, and the employer wouldn't be able to make a deduction from wages for the reimbursement to the restaurant either... at least not without risking a claim for unlawful deductions, and if the employment status is established, annual leave & other entitlements would arise too.
Karl Limpert
Upvote
0
R
Retired_Accountant
If the matter is resolves as a civil matter then it would, given the CCTV, be reasonable "on the balance of probabilities" to assume a theft took place, make the reimburement, deduct it from the sub contractors fees, and see if she sues for it.
If however,m the matter is dealt with as a criminal matter then evidence must be beyond reasonable doubt, and it would be totally wrong to withhold monies until or unless a conviction was obtained.
"Enormous stretch? Paying a witness is demonstrably going to influence their attitude and evidence. Any half decent counsel is going to have a field day with it.
Perverting the Course of Justice whilst usually relating to threats or duress placed on witnesses, can also relate to bribery of witnesses. Once it is established that a payment has been made to a witness it is assumed that it is for the purpose of perverting the course of justice unless it can be proven to be innocent.
]
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
I am sorry, you have not answered my question.
In post 6 you recommend withholding payment from the cleaner, recompensing the customer, and not telling the police because they will not care. A perfectly reasonable opinion.
Now you say that there is a real danger that if the police got involved the payment to the customer could be taken as attempting to pervert the course of justice.
You also say that you object to the lynch mob mentality that seems to convict the cleaner without hearing her side. Again a perfectly reasonable opinion. It does however seem to be at odds with your first initial post.
In post 6 you recommend withholding payment from the cleaner, recompensing the customer, and not telling the police because they will not care. A perfectly reasonable opinion.
Now you say that there is a real danger that if the police got involved the payment to the customer could be taken as attempting to pervert the course of justice.
You also say that you object to the lynch mob mentality that seems to convict the cleaner without hearing her side. Again a perfectly reasonable opinion. It does however seem to be at odds with your first initial post.
Upvote
0
S
Steve Sellers
Please quote the specific Act that enables such an adverse inference to be made.
Upvote
0
R
Retired_Accountant
In post 6 I suggested a course of action - without police involvement.
I have made it perfectly clear that if you involve the police then goal posts move.
What are you finding so difficult to understand about that?
Upvote
0
It is my opinion
My Qualification
I didn't realise there was a recognised qualification in finding humour in something. Any chance you can point me to a course online RA i really think you take life and yourself WAy too seriously. this is T'internet not a court of law.
Can I detail what I find quite laughable WAY TOO FUNNY
This is better than telly.
Upvote
0
This is getting funny. So it's everyone elses' fault that we cant understand your changing opinions?
Marvellous.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
What I Wish I'd Known Before Using AI in My BusinessSomewhere between the headlines promising AI will transform everything...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Is AI Making the Internet Worse?It started with a comment about music. @JEREMY HAWKE , a courier...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The AI Divide: What UKBF Members Really Think in 2026Every few months on UK Business Forums, a thread appears that refuses...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When the Algorithm Gets It Wrong: What eBay's AI Moderation Problem Tells Us About Platform RiskA thread appeared on UKBF this week that, on the surface, looks like a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...
- Ozzy
- Updated: