From just £36 per year
The news today of the company sacking the lad for the attack on Chris Whitty was the right decision,he wouldn’t be able to continue doing his job as he’s committed a criminal act,being in people’s homes etc.If it was my business I wouldn’t want him around and he’d be gone, an employment tribunal wouldn’t be successful either. Its a thing these days for youngsters to film things on phones for social media I think,silly boy.
Employment law is never that straight forward. many cases are lost by a company on "procedural issues" taken by them rather than the actual merits of the case. Don't know enough about this case to comment any further!
External Link/Members OnlyHave they been prosecuted?“ Police said when officers spoke to Prof Whitty, he had not suffered any injuries and told them at the time that he did not wish to make any allegations.They added that the incident had been recorded as a common assault and continued to be investigated.”I agree its “thuggish” behaviour but I think his employers may have jumped the gun.Have they followed a fair process.What strikes me as being very coincidental is that the pair of lads are reported to be on an anti-vaccination rally which suggests they are very anti-government/establishment so why would they want a selfie with this guy?
I'm sure there is probably some clause somewhere where it could be claimed he brought the company into disrepute
if procedure was followed, thats fine, if everyone who commits a crime, loses his job, where does that take us? or is it only crimes that appear in the papers? punishment has to be appropriate, none of us know much about this case.
Seems pretty clear it takes us to unemployed crims.Know everything we need to - moronic yobbo got his comeuppance.
who will cost us money.,
Reminds me of the Estate Agent who stole a bar of chocolate from a property whilst showing people around. It just so happened that the deed was caught on webcam. He lost his job too.External Link/Members OnlyPeople really do need to think about things before doing something they might regret later.
But hopefully someone else with a few more brain cells will get his job, which will save us money.I have just read that the two attackers were desperate to keep their identities private, fearing for their safety if their identities became public. Worried that someone might do to them as they did to Prof Witty? If they think it is okay to behave in that way, they should expect the same in return. Name and shame, I say. I really don't get all this business about offenders having a right to protect their identities.
It never ceases to amaze me how half wits like these think its clever to post videos of themselves online breaking the law. If these two hadn't done that nobody would know their identity.
What would happen if it was the other way round? Two jabs didn't get sacked.
I just heard on radio been charged with assault,good thing to come out of this is that others will think twice about acting like utter wankers with their camera phones around others
His behaviour is in line with what I think of all Estate Agents - complete and utter cunt.
I think he has been charged with common assault, one of the wankers has anyway. Surely video evidence is enough to convict?
It's enough for an arrest, but for a conviction it needs to go to court.
Lol, every case needs to go to court, but surely a video of the crime is enough to convict without a victim statement, or what is the point of all the cctv spying on us?
Without a victim statement there is no crime.
then you could get away with murder ?
That's wrong victim statements are given during sentencing post conviction.
As per the Doc's response above.The CPS have decided to take the case to court, despite the victim not wanting to press charges, so presumably they have decided it is in the public interest that charges should be brought to deter others, and they have sufficient evidence to make a conviction likely. The accused have more or less publicly admitted it anyway, so may well just plead guilty. Although Chris Whitty did not want to press charges, that does not necessarily mean that he would refuse to provide either a witness statement or victim statement should it come to court.
OK OK then just for the pedantic amongst us I'll explain it in words of as few syllables as possible.Man accosted in park, man = victim, victim doesn't make statement = no crime. Man makes statement to police saying he has been assaulted = crime to be investigated. Therefore no statement no crime.
To me it does seem a bit of overkill to take it to court. If it is in the public interest to convict 'crimes' like this, the Courts would be overflowing after every Saturday night. A fixed penalty fine at the very most would be far more appropriate.
