Embarrassed Thief awarded £5,000, man forced to sell home to pay! Options

[Andy Capp]

I find it incredible that it costs £30,000 to get someone awarded £5,000. It makes me wonder who are the thieves!

Link

[GMR]

I find it incredible that it costs £30,000 to get someone awarded £5,000. It makes me wonder who are the thieves!

Link

He's got 'Human Rights' (i.e. the thief). That should tell you everything.

[Andy Capp]

Yes I know, but this settling out of court seems like a scam by the lawyers to me. They all can just say, 'I advise you settle out of court, oh by the way, that'll be £30,000'!

I know the thief doesn't deserve anything like that reward (how can he say I'm hurt but £5,000 I'll do; it's mad), but for me the real scandal is the legal costs!

[GMR]

Yes I know, but this settling out of court seems like a scam by the lawyers to me. They all can just say, 'I advise you settle out of court, oh by the way, that'll be £30,000'!

I know the thief doesn't deserve anything like that reward (how can he say I'm hurt but £5,000 I'll do; it's mad), but for me the real scandal is the legal costs!

Oh, I totally agree with you. I said right from the beginning this Human Rights charter was a scam. Castigating child abusers is also now against their human rights. Everybody has Human Rights, except the victims.

[Simon Kirby]

He's got 'Human Rights' (i.e. the thief). That should tell you everything.

Once again, it is only public authorities that are obliged by law to behave consistently with your convention rights, not private individuals.

[GMR]

Once again, it is only public authorities that are obliged by law to behave consistently with your convention rights, not private individuals.

But they don't.

[Simon Kirby]

Oh, I totally agree with you. I said right from the beginning this Human Rights charter was a scam. Castigating child abusers is also now against their human rights. Everybody has Human Rights, except the victims.

And once again, the Supreme Court has ruled that denying an individual any possibility of appealing their inclusion on the sex offenders register is disproportianate and that after 15 years individuals should be able to apply for leave to appeal their inclusion. There is no automatic right to appeal, they may only apply for leave to appeal after 15 years on the register which they only go on after release from prison, they'll only be given leave to appeal in exceptional circumstances, and they only be taken off the register if they can prove they are safe. This judgement does nothing to limit their "castigation".

[Simon Kirby]

But they don't.

Sorry, who doesn't do what?

[Andy Capp]

I understand that we have human rights to protect us from the state, not from another person as such. The point I'm trying to make is the cost of law. The cost is amazing, even when it doesn't go to court!!!

[GMR]

Sorry, who doesn't do what?

The government.

[GMR]

I understand that we have human rights to protect us from the state, not from another person as such. The point I'm trying to make is the cost of law. The cost is amazing, even when it doesn't go to court!!!

I suppose the lawyers have to make their money while their clients suffer.

[Darren]

Never mind the "Human rights act", even though it doesn't apply here.

What about treating a fellow human being with a bit of courtesy and respect. Innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers.

[Simon Kirby]

I understand that we have human rights to protect us from the state, not from another person as such. The point I'm trying to make is the cost of law. The cost is amazing, even when it doesn't go to court!!!

Agreed. £35k is a bewildering settlement.

[Andy Capp]

Never mind the "Human rights act", even though it doesn't apply here. What about treating a fellow human being with a bit of courtesy and respect. Innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers.

He admitted it, but the police felt a caution was appropriate, so even they denied 'justice' for the victim. Yes, you are right, the Human Rights Act isn't applicable in this issue. This was a civil suit.

[Strafin]

The employer was totally wrong and out of order to this guy and has then run up £30k in bills trying to justify false imprisonment. The problem with taking the law into your own hands like this is that you are just pandering to the human rights lawyers. Mob justice should be carried out privatly and anonymously or not at all.

[NWNREADER]

When this matter first hit the news I feared this would be the outcome. While there is always more to a case than appears in the press this story follows a painfully recurring trend. Employer captures employee with 'fingers in the till', takes a bit of action on his own behalf to put the suspect before the police, suspect gets a caution (?), employer nicked for false imprisonment, charged but case dropped/collapses, suspect sues for hurt feelings, lawyers rub hands.

I hope a benefactor helps out. While the employer was unwise (with hindsight) who of us cannot understand why he did what he did?

[Andy Capp]

Agreed. £35k is a bewildering settlement.

£30,000 legal cost and £5,000 damages, and it didn't even go to court!!!

[Darren]

I do wonder why he settled out of court. Worried about the truth behind 'wages owed' perhaps?

[Andy Capp]

The employer was totally wrong and out of order to this guy and has then run up £30k in bills trying to justify false imprisonment.

OK, this is where the bulk of the costs probably come from, but he won!!!

The problem with taking the law into your own hands like this is that you are just pandering to the human rights lawyers.

This wasn't a Human Rights Act issue; it was a civil matter.

[Andy Capp]

I do wonder why he settled out of court. Worried about the truth behind 'wages owed' perhaps?

Was this mentioned? Anyway, it is the costs involved that strike me, rather than the legal issues.