The following Dodgers have been smited by the JDK for their crimes against Jam:
All the girls! for picking on the JDK and damaging his already delicate self esteem!
The Basserd Who Nicked Copper's Stuff For the offense of nicking Copper's stuff. You are a tw*t, whoever you are and we all hope you get run over by a tram in Nottingham. Or Liverpool. Or whereever else they have trams!
Copper For the crime of playing with her Wii instead of her Jammie pals!
Hmmmm. So she did actually query the "account adjustment" & all they did was ask if she wanted to open a savings account?!! Surely she's not going to need that good a lawyer to get off pretty lightly?
Over the following fortnight, Lee helped herself to £33,000, spending much of it at sex shop chains, Simply Pleasure and Ann Summers.
The biggest question I have is just what the hell was she buying in those shops that ran up to £33,000 - I assume a lot of it is non returnable and I can't imagine the bailifs coming round to take back 20 slightly used pairs of underwear and 40 assorted but used items of an intimate nature.
Did she think at some point what can I buy that they can't or wont take back or this is my one opperchancity to go on the shopping spree of a lifetime or maybe some of the items were made of solid gold.
__________________
I aint no wide eyed rebel, but I aint no preachers son.
sha76jam wrote:Hmmmm. So she did actually query the "account adjustment" & all they did was ask if she wanted to open a savings account?!! Surely she's not going to need that good a lawyer to get off pretty lightly?
Actually, the article just says:
The Daily Mail wrote:'I asked them what "account adjustment" meant but they couldn't tell me. They just asked me if I wanted to open a savings account with the money.'
Even so, section 24A of the Theft Act states:
The Theft Act States:24A. - (1) A person is guilty of an offence if- (a) a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest; (b) he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and (c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.
She knew it wasn't her money. She's on record as saying so. It'd take a pretty bloody good lawyer to interpret that as anything other than 'she's a theiving little scrote!'. Which is probably what her lawyer told her right before she pleaded guilty.
The courts will probably give her a suspended sentence or community service as it's not in the public interest to stick her in a cell. She's unlikely to have the means to repay any of the money that can't be recovered by returning goods, cancelling holidays and requiring the return of the 'gifts' however the court will probably garnish her future income so that she has to pay something like £10 per month for ever and ever back to the bank to cover any unrecoverable losses.
We see a fair few of this type of case through our office, albeit normally for smaller amounts. Sometimes the customer spends the money in good faith because they honestly didn't realise it was a mistake - in those cases, we're ususally pretty sympathetic. Other times they're theiving basserds who deserve everything they get and we sic our high priced lawyers on 'em! And other times, they're just amazingly dumb, as I suspect this woman is!
I wonder if she let the benefits agency know about her windfall. Or was she planning to commit benefit fraud too?
Question for ya: If you find a wallet on the floor with £50 in it and a name and address of the owner do you return it to them intact or do you take the £50 because it was their own fault for dropping it in the first place?
HaloBurn wrote:The biggest question I have is just what the hell was she buying in those shops that ran up to £33,000 - I assume a lot of it is non returnable and I can't imagine the bailifs coming round to take back 20 slightly used pairs of underwear and 40 assorted but used items of an intimate nature.
I'm sure we'll see em on e-bay shortly after the sentencing!
ddvmor wrote:Question for ya: If you find a wallet on the floor with £50 in it and a name and address of the owner do you return it to them intact or do you take the £50 because it was their own fault for dropping it in the first place?
I'd return the wallet, containing £50 minus the postage cost. Know someone who did that though, when they found a wallet with a fair bit of cash in up a mountain. They included a note explaining what they'd done & their address, thinking the owner may want to thank them & who knows, maybe even give them a bit of a reward. They got a highly stoppy letter back, demanding the money that they had "stolen" be returned!
If I found a wallet and they were local I'd just bring it back to the address on the license or whatever. If not I'd mail it and just eat the postage cost.
I lost my wallet that had EVERYTHING in it.. including a fair deal of money (for me anyway). I had lost it on a train and it went into the next county... the guy that found it didn't speak english so he gave it to his cousin who did and she called me with it. I was so grateful that they found it and it was all intact that I gave them the money in the wallet. The area I went to was not a very good one and they very well could have taken everything in there and been done with it. And they didn't. Since the fates were kind to me, I am kind in return.
And its surprising how often banks and other financial institutions make mistakes like that and how nonchalant they tend to be about it. My mom was looking at a statement from one of her mutual funds and she had gotten a payout of something like $36k - it wasn't hers and she had to go through quite a bit of effort to convince the company that it wasn't...