interestrateripoff Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357217/Boss-frogmarched-worker-police-station-stole-845-forced-pay-THIEF-13-000-humiliating-him.html A boss who frogmarched a thieving employee to a police station after discovering he had stolen £845 from the company has been forced to pay the crook £13,000 for 'humiliating him'.Mark Gilbert, 40, was paraded through the streets of Witham in Essex, after his boss Simon Cremer discovered the father-of-three had written out a cheque for £845 to himself. He was forced to wear a sign around his neck saying: 'THIEF. I Stole £845. Am on my way to the police station'. while furious Mr Cremer accompanied him to be quizzed by detectives. However, in a shocking twist, Gilbert was let off with a police caution - a slap on the wrist - while Mr Cremer was hauled before the courts accused of false imprisonment. The distraught employer was facing a possible lengthy jail sentence until the case eventually collapsed. But then Gilbert launched a civil claim for compensation and Mr Cremer's nightmare continued. Now the employer has been forced to hand his thieving former employer £5,000 in compensation for the 'humiliation' he suffered. Mr Cremer, 47, also has to pay £8,000 in legal fees following the theft in Witham, Essex. He said: 'I think it's absolutely disgusting that he was even able to sue me after he had stolen from me to be honest. I don't want to give him a penny after what he did, so it really sticks in my throat. 'He stole from me yet he is the one who is walking away with the money. It makes me so angry.' Thief Gilbert started legal action in an effort to claim for two years lost earnings and the 'distress' he suffered in October 2008. The floor-fitter claimed he had suffered trauma and distress and needed psychological help after the incident. The case had been due to come before a civil court yesterday, but father-of-two Mr Cremer said he could not risk the expense involved in a full hearing where he could potentially have faced a much higher payout ........... Speaking after the incident in 2008 Gilbert said he feared he was going to be killed as he was bundled into the back of a van. He said: 'They laid into me, they beat me, I was begging Simon to let me go to the police, they said they didn't trust me and they had to tie me up. 'They were punching me and threatened me with various tools. They showed me the sign and made me say it out loud three times. 'They stopped at the pub, so they could march me through the streets. I wished the world would swallow me up, I hoped no one would recognise me. 'It was almost a relief when I saw the police station was in sight rather than a remote field.' He claimed previously that he had suffered marks, bruises, a black eye and rope burns as a result of his ordeal and had suffered abuse and taunts since his photograph had appeared in local and national newspapers. Speaking about the boss he stole from he added: 'I feel for the bloke, I respect the bloke but I want him to pay for what he's done. 'I went in my local pub and felt a cold shoulder. I wanted to face people, to deal with it face on. I think this is going to have a long term effect. 'I probably deserved it for what I did, fair enough but I wasn't stealing from him and I paid the money back.' I love the last bit about I wasn't stealing money from him, I paid it back. So it was a unapproved loan then? Looking at the picture which I presume was taken at the time, I'm wondering how long he was held for if he suffered a black eye during the beating? He doesn't look too beaten up in the picture. Although the guy sued should have just rung the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 http://www.dailymail...iating-him.html I love the last bit about I wasn't stealing money from him, I paid it back. So it was a unapproved loan then? Looking at the picture which I presume was taken at the time, I'm wondering how long he was held for if he suffered a black eye during the beating? He doesn't look too beaten up in the picture. Although the guy sued should have just rung the police. Why didn't the boss simply send him to Australia??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosh Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 If that's false imprisonment, then what exactly is 'citizen's arrest'. To be fair, by branding him like that he was asking for a suing. It's not like it's a secret in this country that we have a litigation culture. From the picture it looks like his hands are tied behind his back. This was a simple case of humilating the thief. Wether people see this as right or wrong a simple call to plod would would have done. As his employer he would have all the personal details including address. Absolutely no need for citizens arrest in this case. He should be thankful he is not in any of a select group of countries... Would be missing a few limbs for pinching that sum of money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profitofdoom Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Bizaare,quite bizarre...but it is Essex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 If that's false imprisonment, then what exactly is 'citizen's arrest'. To be fair, by branding him like that he was asking for a suing. It's not like it's a secret in this country that we have a litigation culture. It's question of what is reasonable and proportunate. You can arest someone but have turn them over to the police asap. Also, you can only do it for certain reasons - such as preveting them escaping or committing further criminal acts. It sounds very much like the employer could simply have informed the police and actually had no reason to actually detain the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Whats the difference between having a sign hung around his head and a photo of him with a news story in a paper? If the paper made the statement that he was a thief before he was convicted then they'd get sued. In both instances you can see the person so no humilation there and whats the difference... We try people in Court's of law inthis Country, not street corners. With regard to the hands bound, you are allowed to use reasonable force so having his hands bound is no different to having handcuffs on. The amount of force used in this case was far from "reasonable". There was no need for the employer to use any force at all as he should have simply informed the police. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6323391.stm Seperate point to the BBC article. I thought common law didnt exist at least thats what the whohah is about with regard to marriage and share of assets for unmarried couples isnt it? Of course the Common Law exists - we are a Common Law country. There is, however, no such thing as a "common law" marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Fur Q Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Before we all rush to defend the boss, the people did "punch" and "beat" the guy. Stealing from you doesn't give you the right to beat the thief up. Not unless he resists of course. +1 for 6538 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rahhhh Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Some strange reporting here: "Now the employer has been forced to hand his thieving former employer £5,000 in compensation for the 'humiliation' he suffered" The employer wasn't forced, he agreed to this in an out of court settlement. The real problem is most likely that the employee was doing everything under legal aid - the boss however was open to a large payout if he lost the case. Probably should have ballsed it out, but there was a potential for him to lose everything he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Some strange reporting here: "Now the employer has been forced to hand his thieving former employer £5,000 in compensation for the 'humiliation' he suffered" The employer wasn't forced, he agreed to this in an out of court settlement. The real problem is most likely that the employee was doing everything under legal aid - the boss however was open to a large payout if he lost the case. Probably should have ballsed it out, but there was a potential for him to lose everything he has. The article mentions that he was beng funded by an insurance policy, not Legal Aid. It sounds like the reason why he was only given a caution was that they believed his story as to why he took the money; he claimed that he was owed wages. The lesson here, of course, being one of - don't act like the local Godfather when someone commits a relatively minor crime against you that he will easily be caught for anyway. Just report it to the cops. Also, if someone owes you money just sue them for it rather than steal it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profitofdoom Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 The article mentions that he was beng funded by an insurance policy, not Legal Aid. It sounds like the reason why he was only given a caution was that they believed his story as to why he took the money; he claimed that he was owed wages. The lesson here, of course, being one of - don't act like the local Godfather when someone commits a relatively minor crime against you that he will easily be caught for anyway. Just report it to the cops. Also, if someone owes you money just sue them for it rather than steal it. Absolutely right.The small claims system is cheap and easy to use.It also has the advantage of scaring the sh*t out of hobbledehoys.I just sued a local builder who covered my used car site in dust from an unprotected building site.He was the typical brash big shot until he got in court and his defence fell apart.I got £1475 damages. If anyone wants advice feel free to ask you would be amazed at how easy it is and most defendants run up the white flag at the first whiff of grapeshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juvenal Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/features/crimewatch/2010/june/17/crimewatch-17-06-2010-001.htm You can always rely on the Nigerian Sun for a good tale.... 'Stripped and beaten black and blue...' What happened to con-men when an angry mob got hold of them..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbn Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Hey! Look at the guy on the left in this picture.... He looks like a softcock, Chav, thieving C***!!! But I'm only saying it for comedic effect - so that's OK!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profitofdoom Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Same can be said for the employer. The difference would be how widespread the libel was.With a newspaper it is likely that thousands,even millions would read it .That is why newspapers get sued for large sums.It also depends upon the damage to reputation.So,for example the manager of the Bank of England would have more to lose than a labourer.These laws are quite fascinating and a working knowledge of law can be quite lucrative.I am thinking of writing a layman's guide "Suing for Profit and Pleasure" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 So,for example the manager of the Bank of England would have more to lose than a labourer. He'd have more to lose but would still be left with far more than the labourer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profitofdoom Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 He'd have more to lose but would still be left with far more than the labourer. I was talking in terms of reputation,not cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I was talking in terms of reputation,not cash. So? Loses some of his reputation, but still gets to live comfortably. Aw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profitofdoom Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 So? Loses some of his reputation, but still gets to live comfortably. Aw. I am not defending it.Merely stating how the law of libel works.If you are a labourer the law takes the view that you don't have a reputation to be diminished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Hey! Look at the guy on the left in this picture.... He looks like a softcock, Chav, thieving C***!!! But I'm only saying it for comedic effect - so that's OK!! actually, I think it is the boss that looks like a chav thug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Maybe the police were too busy either way it doesnt prevent someone from making a citizens arrest though and he wasnt punished for making a citizens arrest by the police so the CPS dont agree with your analysis that its far from "reasonable". The police don't "punish" people, the courts do. How on earth do you kn ow what the CPS thought? I fail to see how the employers actions were in any way reasonable as far as the "arrest" goes. It was enitrely unnecessary as far as I can see and appears to lack any legal basis at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedgefunded Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I think the boss got what he deserved. There's a proper legal procedure and walking a bloke who has not been convicted of any crime through the streets like that is plain wrong. Normally I lap up this kind of Daily Mail stuff but in this instance I'm not taking the same line as them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opt_out Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Boss wasn't forced to pay anything. He chose to pay up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profitofdoom Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Boss wasn't forced to pay anything. He chose to pay up. His lawyers will have advised him to cough up.Once these things gather momentum they get a life of their own.The builder I took to a to a small claims court ran up a two grand bill just for a morning out.Any legal dispute is expensive unless you do it all yourself and most people are too scared/stupid to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 His lawyers will have advised him to cough up.Once these things gather momentum they get a life of their own.The builder I took to a to a small claims court ran up a two grand bill just for a morning out.Any legal dispute is expensive unless you do it all yourself and most people are too scared/stupid to do that. Money well spent on the advice then because he'd have lost had he purseued it further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.