My neighbor got sacked

Joeblogs

This is true that's why I'm seeking advice for her

greatgimpo

Joeblogs wrote: »

Loads it's a supermarket

Without CCTV, how have they come to the conclusion it's her to blame?

Joeblogs

greatgimpo wrote: »

Without CCTV, how have they come to the conclusion it's her to blame?

Exactly that's what I can't understand all I want to know is a if they have a case now she been sacked the police wasn't involved till about 1 or so after she got sacked
Can they still get her done if she is no longer working for them

getmore4less

I would expect supermarkets have much better control over till access maybe just a few between each cashing up.

Someone must be familiar with practices and can comment on a typical access cycle.

[Deleted User]

Joeblogs wrote: »

Can they still get her done if she is no longer working for them

They can report a crime to the Police regardless of whether she is an employee or not. You might just as well ask if a shoplifter needs to be an employee.

As to till access, obviously an operator would have to sign onto the till and transactions during that shift would therefore be attributed to that operator.

In my experience, management will be unlikely to have sacked this person at the first suspicion of dishonesty but will have been monitoring any such activity for some time before action. Obviously, they wouldn't wish to inadvertently blame the wrong person and the fact that police were called suggests they have clear evidence rather than simply circumstantial.

Guest101

Joeblogs wrote: »

Been there quiet a few years
Been advised by the police
And don't thinks it a trail she says not

Ok so she has employment rights and therefore there are internal procedures to follow, even for gross misconduct. (speak to ACAS, get a copy of the policy and ultimately perhaps a solicitor)


The police aren't there to advise her, so she should stop speaking to them. In fact without consulting a solicitor, it's sensible to say 'no comment', or nothing at all.


People don't go to court for a chat. So I'm unsure what else she is there for except a hearing, even if it's just a plea hearing.

Guest101

Joeblogs wrote: »

Exactly that's what I can't understand all I want to know is a if they have a case now she been sacked the police wasn't involved till about 1 or so after she got sacked
Can they still get her done if she is no longer working for them

They are not getting her done.


The police have had a crime reported and think they have the correct person.


That's it. The supermarket is no longer involved except as a victim.

MataNui

Sounds fishy.
Most supermarkets only cash up at the end of the day (or so they tell you when they short change you and you challenge them). Until the till is cashed up they wont know its down so if money is missing it could be from anyone who was on that till in that day.

I dont doubt for a second that a supermarket would fire someone first and worry about evidence later. They are hardly examples of model employers. However without CCTV footage or any other evidence they have absolutely zero prospect of getting a conviction.

This is why the police have advised her to admit it. In general the police are a bunch of lying corrupt sacks of !!!!. I know of examples directly where they have lied to victims of crime, lied to solicitors, lied to other officers, committed acts of criminal fraud and where acts of criminal fraud have been covered up/ignored to protect a police officer. There is a reason people refer to them as pigs.

NEVER admit anything to the police if you didnt do it. In this case they know they have no chance of taking it further without a confession. That wont stop them bullying and telling lies though. Same advise applies when offered a police caution. A caution will create a criminal record that will show on DBS checks etc. They wont offer a caution if they think they have a realistic chance of gaining a conviction in court.

duchy

Of course she shouldn't admit it if she didn't do it. Admitting it will make her unemployable. Who is going to employ a self confessed thief ?

[Deleted User]

MataNui wrote: »

I dont doubt for a second that a supermarket would fire someone first and worry about evidence later.

Oh dear. That's quite an assumption based only on a (one-sided) account of what apparently happened in one supermarket.
I have no idea whether the Supermarket have sacked an innocent person, but neither do I know for certain that the person was guilty.

MataNui wrote: »

In general the police are a bunch of lying corrupt sacks of !!!!.

I think your "advice" might be better posted on the Praise Vent and Warnings forum;
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=82