Will I get fired for this?

DCFC79

Have you learnt anything from your experience OP

sho_me_da_money

Just a quick note about the MOT - "it is perfectly normal to forget that an MOT was due if you suspected it was due around the time of re-taxing" - these are the exact words that were said by the independant claims inspector who works for the police as a forensics expert for about 30 years. There is nothing dodgy or immature about the either case (on my part). The insurance company is paying out because I was able to show they were trying to crap on me for another genuine oversight. A pay out is expected soon and I will post the letter and case studies I sent them to make this possible.

Yes I turned the money around in one day but only because it was my own money and not my brothers. My intentions were to have him fork out the cash, which he didnt have. So i coughed up and arranged a payment plan with him.

As for judging, I don't think anyone should play that role on an internet forum. The role to judge should only be played by a court or God. The only thing people on a forum should do, is try and HELP, NOT HELP or IGNORE it. Nobody has the right to sentencing you, especially on a forum.

You are one of the people who I think was great in offering both, pros and cons about this case and I greatly appreciate that. I do not mind hearing advice that is not in my favour - as long as it's done in the correct way.

What I learned - if you make genuine mistakes that you cannot pre-empt, the truth will set you free. I will also exercise better safeguarding and protection of company property. I do not condone what my silly brother did and it completely upsets me that this whole ordeal occurred but I still love him. I will try to help him learn his lessons through love as opposed to using a chisel and hammer (as some expected me to do). There are many ways to express something - good and bad, you just have to take the right approach (depending on who you are dealing with)
Again thank you all for your support (JDX, you were always by my side - cheers mate :beer:)

Weirdlittleman

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Just a quick note about the MOT - "it is perfectly normal to forget that an MOT was due if you suspected it was due around the time of re-taxing" - these are the exact words that were said by the independant claims inspector who works for the police as a forensics expert for about 30 years. There is nothing dodgy or immature about the either case (on my part). The insurance company is paying out because I was able to show they were trying to crap on me for another genuine oversight. A pay out is expected soon and I will post the letter and case studies I sent them to make this possible.

Yes I turned the money around in one day but only because it was my own money and not my brothers. My intentions were to have him fork out the cash, which he didnt have. So i coughed up and arranged a payment plan with him.

As for judging, I don't think anyone should play that role on an internet forum. The role to judge is given to a court or God. The only thing people on a forum can do, is try and HELP or not help via offering advice, which has been demonstrated quite clearly on this thread. They shouldnt be branded people labels.

You are one of the people who I think was great in offering both types of advice and I greatly appreciate that.

What I learned - if you make genuine mistakes that you cannot pre-empt, the truth will set you free. I will also exercise better safeguarding and protection of company property. Again, I do not condone what my silly brother did and it completely upsets me that this whole ordeal occurred but I still love him, I will try and help him learn his lessons through love as opposed to using a chisel and hammer. There are many ways to express something - good and bad, you just have to take the right approach.

Again thank you all for your support (JDX, you were always by my side - cheers mate :beer:)

Maybe to prove everyone wrong you should allow both cases to be taken to a court of law then and see what a judge has to say about you. I bet it certainly isnt that your honest and completely innocent.

These circumstances are brought around by your own at best naivety and possibly far more sinister reasons.

sho_me_da_money

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Maybe to prove everyone wrong you should allow both cases to be taken to a court of law then and see what a judge has to say about you. I bet it certainly isnt that your honest and completely innocent.

These circumstances are brought around by your own at best naivety and possibly far more sinister reasons.

Innocent UNTIL proven guilty, which is not in dispute any more. I have nothing more to say to a Weird Little Man.

You should try and apply for the police - they could do with a laugh.

Ciao. :j

Mischa8

DCFC79 wrote: »

Have you learnt anything from your experience OP

We can only hope so. I say this from experience (both mine and my brother's) - sometimes if you're in a tough spot you *can* and *will* forget certain aspects (ie MOT running out date etc), and even try to put in claims against companies and succeed.

It's not even a question of age but sometimes one would expect this from a person who is considerably younger, maybe it is just a case of character.

The OP has been rapped over the knuckles and judged (how he expects others not to judge him on an internet forum is beyond me, it goes without saying people judge you fairly or unfairly etc). If he learns anything then all well and good.

Hootie19

Why do people think that sho should have taken this matter to the police?

According to The Theft Act 1968, the definition of theft is:


"(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly. [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]"

http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1968TheftAct.shtml


I haven't seen anything in sho's posts (admittedly, I may have missed it) saying that he has not had the phone returned to him - therefore the phone was not stolen. What could the police have done in this instance?


I can't believe that people are baying for the brother's blood for this. Yes, he's done something thoughtless and potentially disastrous for sho, but for goodness sakes! Turning him over to the police seems rather draconian. I also haven't seen anything in sho's posts to indicate that his brother had denied any liability nor refused to pay the money owed.

I'm pleased there was a good outcome for sho - I'd hate to see anyone out of work when they're guilty of nothing more than trust in their families. Presumably lessons have been learned from this and won't be repeated.

Some of the replies on this thread have made me *very* grateful that I am not related to the posters!




[/FONT]

Weirdlittleman

Hootie19 wrote: »

Why do people think that sho should have taken this matter to the police?

According to The Theft Act 1968, the definition of theft is:


"(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly. [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]"[/FONT]

http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1968TheftAct.shtml


I haven't seen anything in sho's posts (admittedly, I may have missed it) saying that he has not had the phone returned to him - therefore the phone was not stolen. What could the police have done in this instance?


I can't believe that people are baying for the brother's blood for this. Yes, he's done something thoughtless and potentially disastrous for sho, but for goodness sakes! Turning him over to the police seems rather draconian. I also haven't seen anything in sho's posts to indicate that his brother had denied any liability nor refused to pay the money owed.

I'm pleased there was a good outcome for sho - I'd hate to see anyone out of work when they're guilty of nothing more than trust in their families. Presumably lessons have been learned from this and won't be repeated.

Some of the replies on this thread have made me *very* grateful that I am not related to the posters!

And what about the call costs?
Does the money paid out to pay the bill which there was no intention of paying not count as permanent deprivation of property.

The answer is yes.

Hootie19

Oh, ok.

I must have missed the post in which the OP stated they had no intention of paying the money back. I will re-read the thread to find it.#

Unless you'd be so kind as to quote it, in case I miss it again?

molerat

There has been no mention of the OP not paying. It is the OP's brother who stole the airtime. Did he really have any intention of paying for it ?

Mischa8

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

And what about the call costs?
Does the money paid out to pay the bill which there was no intention of paying not count as permanent deprivation of property.

The answer is yes.

If you bothered to look to read through any of the thread:-

The phone was taken from a locked briefcase or in a drawer (both changed by OP) - the briefcase had a PIN/combination lock known to bro's family.

No 1 - why did OP's brother not take his own phone?
No 2 - it's a bit hard to swallow that not only did brother take and use the phone for a MONTH whilst abroad and not realising that it could have been a work phone or a phone he (the brother) wasn't meant to use but just carried on using it. If he had been happy that he could use it then this wouldn't be a disputed point. whole thing smacks of brother taking the phone, using it and HOPING it would pass - ie no-one would notice.

If that's not theft I don't know what is.

The brother also charged the phone whilst abroad. And despite the obvious stupidity of the brother he must have been aware that from India (Goa I believe) for a month - that the Facebooking, emails etc would all clock up to a sizeable bill. Even a 10 year old kid could work that out. Who would pay for that, the tooth fairy? His brother?!

Also - if this phone was locked away, surely his brother (the IT one) would have said for a reason - ie the work phone's in there. So the brother knew perfectly well which phone was there and it wasn't just the IT (honest) brother's normal everyday phone.

I could go on and list more but really...

I do doubt the brother (IT one) was really out to defraud anyone, I think he had a stupid brother. and yes, one who is a thief.

if the company the OP works for had known anything about *where the phone was stored/combo lock on briefcase open for all to access* etc then I am sure he would be more than rapped over the knuckles.

Think about it, if you were OP's colleague and did something similarily stupid (breached security of COMPANY property) then you'd be more than a bit peeved if your colleague (ie OP) got off scotfree. Luckily he paid the phone bill amount.

:eek: