You are welcome to your opinion. Others draw their own conclusions.
I concur.
He didn't obtain the money honestly, and with the owner's knowledge and permission. How is that not theft?
Read the post properly Softus. The word "
Hypothetically" appears at the start of the reply to Bahco.
Actually, it doesn't.
You don't know any of that, but if you're right, then how could the police have charged and bailed him?
"Hypothetically" 
"If you're right"
Under what circumstances would you consider a police officer to be simply doing his job, rather than being "a To55er", if he referred an instance of theft for prosecution?
The criminal Justice Units within the Police are renowned for having some idiots who are paid to make decisions - They are called "Decision Makers". Unfortunately, lots of them are ex-Traffic/Uniform with no experience in complex criminal matters so rather than nip any pointless prosecution case in the bud, saving money and grief to those involved they refer it to the CPS, pushing the responsibility onto them.
I see.
Under what circumstances would you consider a police officer to be simply doing his job, rather than being "a To55er", if he referred an instance of theft for prosecution?
70% certain.
There - I've said it.
You are a funny Guy Softus.
And this is when I'm being merely hypothetically funny - you should see my wit in the real world.
Penalty? Heavy? To whom? And in what form?
I was referring to his dismissal. Loss of job, mortgage, ability to find employment in the same field who knows..... The point is that to most it is a heavy penalty for a stupid action.
OK. Fair point. I concur.
Nobody has said that they're refusing to pay wages due. You're just making things up as you go along.
I probably should of used the word "could" instead of can with regard the company.
OK. Fair point. I concur.
No. Really?
A pathetic jibe
OK. Fair point. I concur.
And what relevance does "Company law" (sic.) have in this situation?
I apologise - Should of said "Employment law". Silly me.
You too could be a funny guy, but you've got some way to go. Lesson 1: drop the sarcasm.
The employee has, in effect, written a letter to his employer, not made a statement to the police. You are confused.
No. Bahco says he has made a statement. That implys a more formal document than a letter.
A
signed letter. In other words, a letter. Unless he's been cautioned first, and/or sworn in, I don't see how it could get any more formal.
Utter gibberish. There is specific legislation that governs police interviews and the gathering of evidence. Do you know what the legislation is called?
Um......... Yes. Before I tell you the answer, I gave you a clue. ---- Code of Practice --- do you want another clue?
Nope - I was anticipating that you might get it right, not wrong. C'est la vie. :shrug_emoticon:
Are you reading this stuff out of a comic?
Explain please.
Given that it now appears that your entire post was hypothetical, I suppose fanciful forays into non-reality are incontrovertibly valid, so I retract that question.
What I said is a fact of the Criminal Justice System not something you have seen on a TV show.
Huh?
Is this one of those pathetic jibes that you were referring to?
Finally a couple of comments regarding my post to Bahco. If I had known it would have been dissected by a barrack room lawyer I would have made sure it was prepared to the same standards as the thousands of statements I have taken over the years.
OK. Fair point, assuming of course that you don't do jibes.
I shouldn't have been so pedantic.
Secondly, I don't know if you are playing games, winding people up for a laugh or what. But some of the questions posted by people on this forum are being hi-jacked by you engaging in a pathetic fencing match with your chosen target for the day. It was obviously my turn.
No, no they're not, and no it wasn't, respectively.
Careful examination of your posts reveal very little advice but much criticism. It does you no credit.
OK. I'll take the observation on board, but I have to say that your examination must have care
less, not care
ful.
Leaving aside all the banter, toptec, I like your response - it was calm, considered, and generally very civil. However, I see very little point in the series of hypotheses that you say you were drawing. Why not just address the reality of the situation?
