PDA

View Full Version : Question for CarolB



Lucifer Box
22nd June 2005, 13:47
Did you ever get your quid back off the Post Office?

CarolB
22nd June 2005, 15:28
Latest is:

The clerk involved has been sacked and is likely to be facing criminal charges.

Also currently dealing with Postwatch regarding compensation from Post Office Counters.

Cannot really say any more at this point.

MarillionFan
22nd June 2005, 15:44
"The clerk involved has been sacked and is likely to be facing criminal charges."

Imagine my surprise........

Nah - It's done to death.

BlasterBates
22nd June 2005, 16:00
...criminal charges,

did he attack you :eek

sasguru
22nd June 2005, 16:02
So there I was working quietly in the Post Office when this transvestite bloke walks in mumbles something about parcels and gives me gyp about a quid.
You could tell he was a bloke although he was wearing a dress. He smelled terrible and was carrying a box of Kleenex.
Well anyway I give him hell back and next thing I know they've sacked me.

Lucifer Box
22nd June 2005, 16:06
Also currently dealing with Postwatch regarding compensation from Post Office Counters.
I expect they will offer to settle out of court for a quid. 61p to fund the royal family and the remaining 39p is all yours.

CarolB
22nd June 2005, 16:10
...criminal charges,
did he attack you


If you recall, the clerk involved was a woman. She was dismissed for opening and reading the letter, the evidence against her was irrefutable really.

DimPrawn
22nd June 2005, 16:14
So this woman, with four kids no doubt, will now be on the rock-and-roll (i.e. incapacity) for the next 10 yrs due to stress related illness.

Thanks Carol. More tax wasted. >:

Lucifer Box
22nd June 2005, 16:26
Be fair, DP, they did want to charge Carol a quid for there not being the correct postage on her letter.

CarolB
22nd June 2005, 16:26
It all depends on the CPS, but as I said the evidence speaks for itself so she is very likely to be charged. She could expect up to two years in the big house from what I've been told.

Is that likely to cost more than being 'on the sick'?

At least I know my tax dollars are directed at righting the wrongs:smokin

PRC1964
22nd June 2005, 16:46
tax dollars

Grrrrr... mumble, mumble, fecking mumble, fecking colonies, s0dding corruption of our language... mumble... mumble... Telegraph... mumble... disgusted... mumble Tunbridge... mumble... etc.

AtW
22nd June 2005, 16:51
2 years in jail sounds grossly unproportional to what she did -- motorists who killed someone on the road get less for manslaughter.

Firing from her job plus recovering any real losses CarolB had would have been more than sufficient.

Lucifer Box
22nd June 2005, 16:57
AtW, are you mad? This upstart counter clerk needed to be ground underfoot. Unless we keep clerks in their place with a rod of iron, who knows where society would end up.

She is lucky she did not face the death penalty.

FrancoLondinium
22nd June 2005, 17:01
She would be shot in Russia. Or beaten to death with a big sized matrioska. :\

mailmannz
22nd June 2005, 17:15
2 years in jail sounds grossly unproportional to what she did -- motorists who killed someone on the road get less for manslaughter.

***** you can be an ignorant moron at times AtW :rollin

There is a greater issue here and that is that if this person has opened one letter, read it and stolen money...HOW many others has she done the same. The sum may seem small to you but there are bigger issues of security and honesty here. No wonder Royal Post loses 20 thousand articles of mail every week!

I reckon she should get more than 2 years for her crime.

Mailman

widgetdance
22nd June 2005, 17:22
2 years in jail sounds grossly unproportional to what she did -- motorists who killed someone on the road get less for manslaughter.TwAttY is right, it is out of proportion, but the answer lies at the other end of the scale. Not outrage at how much she gets, but outrage at how little the motorist gets.

AtW
22nd June 2005, 17:33
> There is a greater issue here and that is that if this person has
> opened one letter, read it and stolen money...

mailman -- I don't believe she stole any money. If I remember correctly she weighted letter and it was just over limit, so she insisted CarolB pays extra -- and then it all started.

EddieC
22nd June 2005, 17:34
Wiggly,

I absolutely agree.

You should be locked up for tampering with the post, but you should be locked up for much longer for killing someone with your car.

NumptyCorner
22nd June 2005, 17:35
It depends on the circumstaces. Noone goes out to kill someone in their car.

EddieC
22nd June 2005, 17:44
Yes, if it is an accident then fine, these things happen.

If you are pissed, stoned, chatting on the phone or generally driving like a @#%$ then you have made a choice and should be seen as guilty of murder and face the same penalty.

Eddie

P.S. Noone doesn't mean anything in English.

widgetdance
23rd June 2005, 07:38
Numpty: I would generally agree, but as Eddie says, once you factor in stupidity a car becomes a lethal weapon, we lock people up for having guns without a licence, we send twocers on go-karting holidays for driving without a licence.

We need at least two pieces of legislation.
1. Culpable manslaughter. If you kill someone or cause someones death whilst doing something stupid, or doing something illegal, if that death could have been avoided had you not done what you did, then you should be held responsible and go to prison for a long time.

2. Driving a car without a licence, insurance, MOT etc, being involved in an accident due to careless wreckless or even dangerous driving should be offensive weapons offences.
Maybe drivers would be a lot more careful about how they drive.

Lucifer Box
23rd June 2005, 08:25
being involved in an accident due to careless wreckless or even dangerous driving
Shirley such a car accident would be anything but "wreckless"?

Gads, I'm so sharp today I fear I might cut myself.

WageSlave1
23rd June 2005, 08:53
The clerk involved has been sacked and is likely to be facing criminal charges.

The clerk held a position of trust, which she abused. She deserves the heavy hand of justice.
I blame comprehensive education :rolleyes

threaded
23rd June 2005, 10:26
WageSlave1: Agree there comprehensive 'edukasun' is at the root of many problems in the UK.

Going decimal is at the root of many others.

NumptyCorner
23rd June 2005, 10:35
Driving a car without a licence, insurance, MOT etc, being involved in an accident due to careless wreckless or even dangerous driving should be offensive weapons offences.

A friend (no not me) was hit by someone as he went through a green traffic light, it was his right of way and the other driver jumped a red. The police tried to blame my friend and threatened to charge him with driving without due car and attention, there were no witnesses but he was forced to go on a dangerous driving course which the police now profit from (coincidentally?). If the person in the other car were killed should he have gone to prison for murder?

Lucifer Box
23rd June 2005, 10:55
A friend (no not me) was hit by someone as he went through a green traffic light, it was his right of way and the other driver jumped a red. The police tried to blame my friend and threatened to charge him with driving without due car and attention
Huh? How can this possibly be your, sorry your friend's, fault? The basic principle is that unless there are exceptional cicumstances (e.g. someone blasted out of a blind junction right in front of you) if you hit someone, it's your fault.

If your friend isn't telling porkies to cover himself, I think he has a case for bringing a charge of police harrasment.

NumptyCorner
23rd June 2005, 10:58
He's not the type to make things up. It's a road where people often jump the red. He was turning from a side road, the Police arguement was he should have seen the car jumping the lights.

Lucifer Box
23rd June 2005, 11:00
So did he hit the car jumping the red, or did the car jumping the red hit him? If the latter, this is just police harrasment. The conclusion of that train of thinking is that no one would go over a green light in case someone jumped the red coming the other way and drove into you.

NumptyCorner
23rd June 2005, 11:04
I would have fought it, but they he decided to pay for the course rather than risk points a fine or whatever.

I've heard of a couple of other cases where the police have been doing this threatening tactic to get people on their £300 courses.

AFAIR my friends only error was to assume no-one would be coming through the red light. The other driver disputed that he'd gone through the red but he was the only car to go through in a line of traffic. Unfortunately my friend assumed the other guy was going to play fair so didn't seek witnesses.
The police tried to do the other guy first but then just latched onto my friend who was less cunning.

threaded
23rd June 2005, 11:10
One of the reasons I got fed up of living in the UK was the plod doing stuff just like the above. It is really sickening. It is so much like several incidents I've had I can well believe it.

Due to the sort of cars I drive I found in the UK there were more than necessary jealous types that would try and have accidents with you.

And the plod always seem to back them up.

Tw4ts

widgetdance
23rd June 2005, 11:14
I would expect that red jumpers and deliberate crashers would be much reduced if they faced an offensive weapons charge should they be found to be at fault.

This would no longer be under police control as it would no longer be regarded as a traffic offense.

threaded
23rd June 2005, 11:24
Forgot to mention: I always carry a disposable camera with me. Whenever there is an accident I take lots and lots of pictures. All around both cars, not just at the impact point.

Never ever ever mention to the plod you have photographic evidence, they will seize the camera and lose it (had that trick pulled on me as well).

And thanks in no small part to that I have an 80% no claims bonus and a clean driving license.

planetit
23rd June 2005, 11:26
Driving a car without a licence, insurance, MOT etc, being involved in an accident due to careless wreckless or even dangerous driving should be offensive weapons offences.
Always amazes me that the penalty for driving without a licence, seems to be a driving ban. :rolleyes

What’s the point of banning someone who wasn’t allowed to drive in the first place?

NumptyCorner
23rd June 2005, 11:28
Forget the normative stuff like drink driving what about the emotive crap?

Anyone can kill someone in a car. A kid can run out into the road, and you can kill him at 20mph. The emphasis from the parents point of view will be to blame the driver, not the fact that he hasn't been taught the green cross code. I rmember readin an article in the paper about some group who had campaigned for speed bumps so that little johnny can play football in the road. Excuse me WTF is the road for?

All of a sudden the parents of RTA incidents become experts in road safety, "oh that road is so dangerous that killed our 17 yr old Johnny" (in his 140bhp Saxo) we must have speed bumps.

End of rant

WageSlave1
23rd June 2005, 13:30
Due to the sort of cars I drive I found in the UK there were more than necessary jealous types that would try and have accidents with you.

That's true for more than just cars. There are all sorts of problems caused by having a certain accent and being educated at certain schools and universities.