ChatterBank2 mins ago
Had him grabbed by his "Sweet-Breads" for pinching her "Shortbreads".
27 Answers
http://www.dailymail....-sentenced-theft.html
How totally petty this woman has been, although he did in fact pinch the biscuits, was it worth him going to court and losing his job and his previously good character for?
Would a chap have kicked up so much grief if a female colleague, had pinched his biscuits?
I only hope Ms Harrison is now made even more "insecure" by the other call-centre workers, and no one else "invades her privacy", in fact I hope they keep well away from her.
How totally petty this woman has been, although he did in fact pinch the biscuits, was it worth him going to court and losing his job and his previously good character for?
Would a chap have kicked up so much grief if a female colleague, had pinched his biscuits?
I only hope Ms Harrison is now made even more "insecure" by the other call-centre workers, and no one else "invades her privacy", in fact I hope they keep well away from her.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There's alot we don't know about this because it's not in the article.
We don't know if they were on the desk or in it.
We don't know if the lid was on or off.
We don't know if it was an isolated incident or if she'd had things taken before.
We don't know if he denied it outright at first (because he's a liar) and only changed the story when confronted with CCTV evidence.
So admittedly based largely on guesswork, this is how I see it.
I don't think he thought they were communal. I think he just thought - ooh look someone's got biscuits, I'll have some of them - what can they do - sack me?
She's come in, been quite rightly annoyed, and asked the company to investigate.
From that point on it's down to them isn't it? It won't be her demanding that he get the sack, and presumably she wouldn't have known who the culprit was - it could have been another woman, so Git's accusations of anti-male sexism are nonsense.
The lesson here is, if you want to keep your job, don't be a thieving git.
We don't know if they were on the desk or in it.
We don't know if the lid was on or off.
We don't know if it was an isolated incident or if she'd had things taken before.
We don't know if he denied it outright at first (because he's a liar) and only changed the story when confronted with CCTV evidence.
So admittedly based largely on guesswork, this is how I see it.
I don't think he thought they were communal. I think he just thought - ooh look someone's got biscuits, I'll have some of them - what can they do - sack me?
She's come in, been quite rightly annoyed, and asked the company to investigate.
From that point on it's down to them isn't it? It won't be her demanding that he get the sack, and presumably she wouldn't have known who the culprit was - it could have been another woman, so Git's accusations of anti-male sexism are nonsense.
The lesson here is, if you want to keep your job, don't be a thieving git.
Very interesting, this was one of the topics of discussion on late night chat radio radio last night.
Everyone who phoned or text into the radio station, including the presenter, thought that this was so petty and that Ms Harrison should feel ashamed of herself, for making so much stink over such a small matter of a few biscuits..
Invasion of her personal space in an open plan call centre office, I ask you?
Everyone who phoned or text into the radio station, including the presenter, thought that this was so petty and that Ms Harrison should feel ashamed of herself, for making so much stink over such a small matter of a few biscuits..
Invasion of her personal space in an open plan call centre office, I ask you?
Eddie61, yes, I thought that as well: why didn't he just plead not guilty and put his case to the court instead of to the Daily Mail? If he's telling the truth, he took the biscuits under an honest misapprehension, and a judge or jury might well have accepted this and let him off. Since the Mail has listened to only one side of the story, which courts do not, it's easy to conclude that we've only heard the half of it.
His employers dismissed him, he pled guilty and the court imposed a conditional discharge and costs. In the great scheme of things it may not be the most serious of offences but it was considered to be theft and the court agreed. Luckily for this country, the results of a radio 'phone-in do not determine guilt, innocence nor justification for a trial.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.