Post staff face quiz on thefts

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/09/1 ... on-thefts/

Six Stone postal workers have been suspended over allegations of stolen mail, it has been revealed.

The employees, based at a delivery office, have been told to stay at home while an investigation into the delay and theft of mail takes place.

Since the suspensions last week, two of the workers involved have already left their jobs voluntarily.

Royal Mail bosses say this is no automatic indication of guilt. Police will receive details of any evidence of wrongdoing.

The other four will remain off duty until Royal Mail decides whether they should face criminal proceedings.

The firm says it takes a “zero tolerance” approach to dishonesty and has pledged to return any stolen or missing mail as soon as it can.

A Royal Mail spokesman said: “Last Tuesday, six employees based at the Stone delivery office were suspended as part of a Royal Mail internal investigation.

“The investigation covers non-delivery and theft of mail.

“Two individuals involved in the cases have resigned however this is without prejudice and will not prevent Royal Mail proceeding with criminal prosecutions. Any mail that has been recovered, as part of the investigation, will be delivered at the earliest possible opportunity.”

The sorting office is based at Stone Business Park on Opal Way and employs around 40 people.

[falkor]

What's going on?

When I first started back in the early 80's it was a rarity for people to steal from the mail.

It was a real shock to hear that a thief had been caught stealing from the mail, now it seems to be an everyday occurrence.

Is it a sign of the times? Or does the fault lay with RM and their recruiting policy.

[Lounge Lizard]

We never had all this before Thatcher was in power. I blame her.

[BELIAL]

Anybody else noticed an increase in the amount of stuff coming from MC's thats been neatly sliced? Me, I'm bagging about one a day now,used to be about one a month

[staffordtigers]

[andy2007]

Anybody else noticed an increase in the amount of stuff coming from MC's thats been neatly sliced? Me, I'm bagging about one a day now,used to be about one a month

You could do with contacting IB, if you have any suspicions. It just isn't worth risking a few "bad apples" ruining our reputation.

[andy2007]

What's going on?

When I first started back in the early 80's it was a rarity for people to steal from the mail.

It was a real shock to hear that a thief had been caught stealing from the mail, now it seems to be an everyday occurrence.

Is it a sign of the times? Or does the fault lay with RM and their recruiting policy.

None of those six have done anything wrong yet and it wont be the first time this week that posties have been wrongfully accused of something, but with that said! The fault has to lie first and foremost with any "thief" and a very close second come RM and their recruiting policy and the down grading of terms conditions pensions that force good posties to leave the job to be replaced by people that have not been checked by RM. Cant speak for anyone else but the influx of untrained unchecked people doing the job for six weeks at Xmas fills me with dread because you just know some chancers will be dipping and dumping instead of delivering and we will be tared with the same brush.

Exactly! Even if Mail HAS been stolen, or deliberately delayed. It doesn't mean that any of the 6 were responsible. There have been a few cases already, of people stealing from other people's rounds, to deflect the blame.

Having said that: I'm sick to death of reading, and hearing of cases, where people get off lightly for this type of thing! They don't often get jailed. And even if they do, it's only for a couple of years. It's not exactly a deterrant, is it?!?

[falkor]

What's going on?

When I first started back in the early 80's it was a rarity for people to steal from the mail.

It was a real shock to hear that a thief had been caught stealing from the mail, now it seems to be an everyday occurrence.

Is it a sign of the times? Or does the fault lay with RM and their recruiting policy.

None of those six have done anything wrong yet and it wont be the first time this week that posties have been wrongfully accused of something, but with that said! The fault has to lie first and foremost with any "thief" and a very close second come RM and their recruiting policy and the down grading of terms conditions pensions that force good posties to leave the job to be replaced by people that have not been checked by RM. Cant speak for anyone else but the influx of untrained unchecked people doing the job for six weeks at Xmas fills me with dread because you just know some chancers will be dipping and dumping instead of delivering and we will be tared with the same brush.

Exactly! Even if Mail HAS been stolen, or deliberately delayed. It doesn't mean that any of the 6 were responsible. There have been a few cases already, of people stealing from other people's rounds, to deflect the blame.

Having said that: I'm sick to death of reading, and hearing of cases, where people get off lightly for this type of thing! They don't often get jailed. And even if they do, it's only for a couple of years. It's not exactly a deterrant, is it?!?

I havn't made any accusations or implied that the six are guilty, as far as I am concerned they are innocent until proven otherwise as in English law.

Just making the point that IMO theft and accusations of theft within RM seem to appear on a more regular basis than in previous years.

[staffordtigers]

I KNOW that 2 are guilty of stealing currency - and 1 had 4500 items stored in a shed.

[brothermagrew]

What's going on?

When I first started back in the early 80's it was a rarity for people to steal from the mail.

It was a real shock to hear that a thief had been caught stealing from the mail, now it seems to be an everyday occurrence.

Is it a sign of the times? Or does the fault lay with RM and their recruiting policy.

None of those six have done anything wrong yet and it wont be the first time this week that posties have been wrongfully accused of something, but with that said! The fault has to lie first and foremost with any "thief" and a very close second come RM and their recruiting policy and the down grading of terms conditions pensions that force good posties to leave the job to be replaced by people that have not been checked by RM. Cant speak for anyone else but the influx of untrained unchecked people doing the job for six weeks at Xmas fills me with dread because you just know some chancers will be dipping and dumping instead of delivering and we will be tared with the same brush.

Exactly! Even if Mail HAS been stolen, or deliberately delayed. It doesn't mean that any of the 6 were responsible. There have been a few cases already, of people stealing from other people's rounds, to deflect the blame.

Having said that: I'm sick to death of reading, and hearing of cases, where people get off lightly for this type of thing! They don't often get jailed. And even if they do, it's only for a couple of years. It's not exactly a deterrant, is it?!?

I havn't made any accusations or implied that the six are guilty, as far as I am concerned they are innocent until proven otherwise as in English law.

Just making the point that IMO theft and accusations of theft within RM seem to appear on a more regular basis than in previous years.

That's why I believe us Scots have a far better justice system as we also have the not proven verdict as well.

[DGP1]

It's all a ploy by senior management to ensure the public get a bad impression of us posties and that the managers are the only ones trying to stop it.

Standard bluff and mis-direction

[andy2007]

What's going on?

When I first started back in the early 80's it was a rarity for people to steal from the mail.

It was a real shock to hear that a thief had been caught stealing from the mail, now it seems to be an everyday occurrence.

Is it a sign of the times? Or does the fault lay with RM and their recruiting policy.

None of those six have done anything wrong yet and it wont be the first time this week that posties have been wrongfully accused of something, but with that said! The fault has to lie first and foremost with any "thief" and a very close second come RM and their recruiting policy and the down grading of terms conditions pensions that force good posties to leave the job to be replaced by people that have not been checked by RM. Cant speak for anyone else but the influx of untrained unchecked people doing the job for six weeks at Xmas fills me with dread because you just know some chancers will be dipping and dumping instead of delivering and we will be tared with the same brush.

Exactly! Even if Mail HAS been stolen, or deliberately delayed. It doesn't mean that any of the 6 were responsible. There have been a few cases already, of people stealing from other people's rounds, to deflect the blame.

Having said that: I'm sick to death of reading, and hearing of cases, where people get off lightly for this type of thing! They don't often get jailed. And even if they do, it's only for a couple of years. It's not exactly a deterrant, is it?!?

I havn't made any accusations or implied that the six are guilty, as far as I am concerned they are innocent until proven otherwise as in English law.

Just making the point that IMO theft and accusations of theft within RM seem to appear on a more regular basis than in previous years.

That's why I believe us Scots have a far better justice system as we also have the not proven verdict as well.

Doesn't that lead to doubt, and rumours, about those who get a not proven verdict?
Surely it's better to be found Innocent or Guilty?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Doesn't that lead to doubt, and rumours, about those who get a not proven verdict?
Surely it's better to be found Innocent or Guilty?

The modern perception that the "not proven" verdict is an acquittal used is incorrect. When the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the defendant's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict, they can use the "nor proven" verdict.

Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary. However technically under Scots law (though not in the perception of the public) there is no difference between "not proven" and "not guilty" and both are equivalent to the "Not Guilty" verdict of English Law and of other jurisdictions.

[brothermagrew]

The Not Proven Verdict

Scots law is unusual in allowing three alternative verdicts in a criminal trial. Although the "Not Proven" verdict is known, incorrectly, as the third verdict, it has a 300 year history in Scotland. Even though it has a long history it has been the subject of criticism since 1827 when Sir Walter Scott, novelist and Sheriff, described the not proven verdict as "that bastard verdict, not proven."


The verdict of not proven is essentially one of acquittal. In all respects the verdicts of not guilty and not proven have exactly the same legal effects. In practice it is thought that a verdict of not proven simply means that the judge or jury have reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt. It is interesting to note that the not proven verdict is used in one third of acquittals by juries, and in one fifth of acquittals in non-jury trials. Because of the higher number of non-jury trials ninety per cent of all not proven verdicts are returned in such cases. It is generally thought that the verdict gives juries, and judges, an option between not guilty and guilty where they feel that the charges have not been proved but they equally cannot say the accused is "not guilty" because of its moral connotations.


Current challenge to the verdict stems from the dissatisfaction and feelings of injustice suffered by the families of victims of crime. Political influence has also been apparent, in 1993 George Robertson tabled a Private Members Bill to abolish the verdict.


The legal profession has been divided over the issue most of this century. A number of eminent judges have attacked the verdict. One saying that it was theoretically and historically indefensible, Lord Moncrieff in 1906. Others have supported it. In 1964 Lord Justice General Clyde stated that "for upwards of 200 years a not proven verdict has been available . . . and no convincing argument has been advanced to justify its elimination from our law." One view from England helped to explain the reason for the not proven verdict, Judge Gerald Sparrow wrote, "I have often thought that the distinction typifies the different spirit of Scottish and English law: the Scottish being the more logical, the English more sporting." The original verdicts in Scots law were "culpable" and "convict"; or "cleanse". Guilty and not guilty were introduced by Cromwell during the Usurpation, when he imposed English judges on Scotland. After the reformation the Scots courts reverted to asking judges to find whether the facts in the indictment were "proven" or "not proven." The "not guilty" verdict was reintroduced in 1723 in the trial of Carnegie of Findhorn for the murder of the Earl of Strathmore. In 1975 the Thomson Committee which examined Scottish criminal procedure recommended that the three verdict system be retained. In 1993 the Scottish Office said that "it was not convinced that there was enough groundswell of dissatisfaction from the public and, crucially, from the legal profession" to justify any scrutiny of the not proven verdict. Most recently in 1994 the Government in a White Paper, Firm but Fair, dealing, inter alia, with the verdict made no proposals for any changes as in the absence of "a considerable weight of informed opinion against the verdict" the three verdict system should be retained.


It would appear that there is no immediate prospect that there will be any change in the current three verdict system.


See it's all in the spirit of the law ours is more logical whilst the English is more sporting.