Bring back the Stocks
Am I the only one somewhat sad that both guys in this photo were nicked this week?
The guy on the right is flooring firm manager Simon Cramer, who discovered the guy on the left Mark Gilbert had fraudulently cashed on the the company’s cheques & made it out to himself.
When Gilbert arrived for work, Cramer & some other employees grabbed him, tied his arms behind his back & put him in the company van to drive him to the middle of an Essex town. They then marched him through the town centre with a home-made placard round his neck reading “Thief. I stole £845. Am on my way to police station.”
Cramer said he was merely effecting a citizen’s arrest but the police took a dimmer view & arrested him for false imprisonment.
OK, maybe they took things a little too far in the way they ‘arrested’ the alleged thief but there is something in me which says ’serves him right’. I suspect that the humiliation & embarrassment of being paraded through the town centre with a big sign round his neck will have done more than the potential threat of a case at the local magistrates which would probably never get to court anyway either through being cautioned, or dropped by the CPS.
I suggest we do away with all the fixed penalty tickets for disorder, drunkenness & minor violence & instead parade people through town centres for a couple of hours on a Saturday afternoon. I reckon it will have a much bigger effect than an £80 fine (a large percentage of which are never paid).
Todd says:
And now the thief is intending to sue for “humiliation and upset”. Priceless.
What a f*cking country.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Tony F says:
Pity they didn’t chain him to something, and supply rotten eggs etc..
October 1st, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Oi says:
Outstanding! That man deserves a Tetleys!
October 1st, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Civ_In_The_City says:
This is another of those ‘letter of the law’ cases we`ve discussed on this blog.
Yes, it`s technically two wrongs making no good.
BUT. If the bloke who stole the money (and got caught bang to rights by the sound of it) gets LESS punishment for his crime than the bloke who he stole from then we should all stop and have a think for a moment.
If that scenario comes about (and I wouldn`t be surprised) is this the sort of legal system we want? Does it indicate that our legal system is working the way it should or that it`s a bit wonky?
Crazy as it sounds I think it would be a good reflection on our legal system. Dealing with the facts and each case on merit.
But there should be a couple of opportunities before it gets before the courts for this to be dealt with in a way that favours the initial victim instead of punishing him more than the initial offender. Allowing the officer at the station desk to exercise some discretion would be a start.
Admittedly I haven`t thought this through thoroughly, but wouldn`t this allow a slim chance of creating a fairer society that penalises criminality and supports the law-abiding.
All I`m saying is allow the spirit of the law to have chance before relying on blind justice.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Altercation says:
Civ_In_The_City, you had me nodding right up to your last two words. Justice needs to be blind. If the boss goes to court and gets off false imprisonment then a dangerous precedent could be set. However, like you, I’d like to see this dealt with in the police station with a caution (if he’s eligible). But let me re-iterate, if he goes to court then he deserves everything he gets. We can’t harp on about Magistrates being too soft on some and expect them to be lenient when it’s popular to do so.
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 am
Richard A says:
As a civilian I would have done the same thing. He arrested him, restrained him & took him to the nick. I don’t see where the false imprisonment comes into. I’m sure that will soon be explained to me as I’m sure the majority of MOPs do not know the letter of the law.
Great blog.
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Steve H says:
You can sympathise with the owner of the firm but it’s a slippery slope and slippery slopes are very dangerous in a country where the bottom is one huge pile of poo.
Turn a blind eye to this and the next thing you’ll see is paediatricians being paraded by mobs through the streets of South Wales with signs round their necks saying “I am a paedo”.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Civ_In_The_City says:
Altercation,
We`re in complete agreement. Once it gets to court it needs to go by the book, I`d like to see less dealt with by the sausage machine of the court system though, and more dealt with in other, more human, means. Just feeding people into the system and cranking the handle isn`t getting us the sort of law and order most of us want.
And, I suspect, it`s not the type of law and order that we had in mind when we started making laws in the first place.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Eric Roberts says:
They went to far, now I hear the company has been evicted from their premises.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Plodnomore says:
Whatever the circumstances, Cramer did take the law into his own hands and, in effect, became a vigilante. “I know he did it.” does not constitute a fair trial and vigilantism may seem good on the surface but where do you stop? Humiliate the thieves and give them a good kicking, then start on the paedophiles, the burglars, rapists and continue onto those who cycle on the pavement, drop litter, part their hair on the ‘wrong’ side, listen to The Archers, etc. Why stop there. Tie them up and throw them in the pond and if they float, burn the buggers at the stake. Have they got any warts or ‘devil marks’ on their skin? Back to the stake we go. The reason we have a Police force, albeit with problems, is to prevent alleged victims taking the law into their own hands. We’ll be burning books next. I can understand why Mr Cramer did it but can’t agree with the fact that he did.
Plodnomore
October 4th, 2008 at 8:31 pm