Shrimpsvoices

http://www.thevisitor.co.uk/news/local/ ... -1-7767134

Carer steals money from a vulnerable old lady. She admits to stealing £960 but only has to pay £740 compensation? Is the magistrate saying the old lady deserved to lose £220?

Its wrong, I thought the same, people are saying that it was a lot more, that she had been stealing over a longer period, and she had stolen off other vulnerable folk, and the amount she was prosecuted for was only the tip of the iceberg, they shouldn't gossip like this without proof.

i know her Mary, i was surprised and disipointed with the news, i reserved judgement at first, i like to give people the benifit of doubt, , i will still speak to her, i think she's been very foolish, cant help but feel for the victim, her faith and trust in people will be shattered.

glad Mary pleaded guilty straight away and brought the money to square things up

. She has expressed her remorse, helped police, and has brought the money with her today and has written a letter of an apology. It is a foolish act to get involved with but she is clearly of good character and has shown genuine remorse.”

the link Keith reads Mary offered to settle the £960 , then the Magistrates go and say you only have to pay £740, i would like to think and hope Mary paid the full amount, and at least try and get some credabilty back , and more importantly might give the victim some faith back in human nature.

Bit confused with this the paper says :-
She has expressed her remorse, helped police, and has brought the money with her today and has written a letter of an apology.

Read more: http://www.thevisitor.co.uk/news/local/ ... z423I7qFx0

And i assume the judge is also ordering her to pay £740 compensation
Well that's how I read it

I read it as if she wanted to pay back the last £220 she stole, added to the amount of compensation would equate to the full amount.
Either way the FIVE offences over several weeks, as listed in the article don't amount to £960, so we must presume there are more offences over the 2 months mentioned.

"She was glad she had been caught because she felt disgusted "

My arse she did,the only reason was the fact she had been caught

robbing cow and should have had a stiffer penalty!!

I have said it on FB and i'll say it here, ''If this was a bloke he would have been jailed''.

So with that statement do we have discrimination between genders

when it comes to crime and punishment ,totally, its a fact.

The article doesn't really explain the full story. The police have the cash difference in evidence, hence she only had to pay the differential.

Sammy h wrote:The article doesn't really explain the full story. The police have the cash difference in evidence, hence she only had to pay the differential.

I don't understand what you mean? Pay the difference between what? Why would the police have it unless they recovered the actual physical notes that she stole (which would be evidence)? Or are you saying that the stolen amount is being returned and an extra £740? In which case the victim ends up with £1,700?

Sorry, rather hungover and probably didn't explain it correctly. The police were waiting for her one afternoon after she had robbed the victim. The notes had been marked with a uv pen. These notes were taken away and kept as police evidence. Hence the difference reported in the media.

Sammy h wrote:Sorry, rather hungover and probably didn't explain it correctly. The police were waiting for her one afternoon after she had robbed the victim. The notes had been marked with a uv pen. These notes were taken away and kept as police evidence. Hence the difference reported in the media.

Ah, that makes more sense, ta.

So hyperthetically, if there is only the money she was caught stealing being repaid, it's possible she stole more previously, which is why the hidden camera was set up?

Bang the robbing cow up, thats my opinion, stealing from a weak and vulnerable oap is dispicable a d the punishment does not fit the crime.

mrpotatohead wrote:So hyperthetically, if there is only the money she was caught stealing being repaid...

You have to trust her to be honest enough about the money she stole. I can't see a problem with that

Her ''trustworthiness'' is totally destroyed and we can assume the worst, the message sent out by this sentence is , public shaming aside, merely paying back what can be proven to be thieved is the only punishment you will recieve for betraying a helpless person you were paid to care for, she's worse than a burglar and this must be a bitter pill for the victim and her family to swallow.

Keith wrote:

mrpotatohead wrote:So hyperthetically, if there is only the money she was caught stealing being repaid...

You have to trust her to be honest enough about the money she stole. I can't see a problem with that

yes, and if we are true and liberal minded, look for the good in people.

I wonder what a certain Mr Solent would think of this?

And I was being sarcastic

Where's that 'whoosh' when you need it?

I employ 40+ staff, most of whom have the opportunity to do exactly this crime. I am without any doubt that they are all without any inclination to do it. But I can't ever be 100% sure. If they did I'd feel guilty for putting them in the position of trust and would have no problem with them doing a period of time in prison. At least the public shaming is some punishment.

I consider myself very liberal minded, I actually dislike the way our prisons punish ,rather than rehabilitate, but this is far from a victimless crime, and sometimes the victim deserves to see appropriate punishment, and this ''slap on the wrist'' is not in my opinion, acceptable.

thing is, we've over crowded prisons, got a fast growing population.

We send (disproportionately) women to jail for non-payment of TV License fee. The Tories set about shutting down & selling off psychiatric hospitals, leading to a huge increase n the number of people with mental health problems in jail instead of psychiatric care.

Take them out of the prison population and there may be space for the sticky fingered who prey on the vulnerable.

I think Keith sums things up in a nutshell there.