Not silly really, if whoever had the envelope stolen from them wanted to pursue the matter throught the courts, then they would have to hear the case, and if found guilty then the outcome would probably be very similar.....

So when somebody does something wrong they are not allowed to be criticised? Are we saying that people who rob, steal, or have indecent images of children on their computer should not be vilified. Sure everyone has made mistakes in their lives but I for one have never stolen money, been convicted of a criminal offence or even arrested for that matter. I think it puts me in a reasonable position to be able to criticise someone who has.

This reminds me of a shocking recent incident regarding the daughter of a friend of mine who was punished for criticising a teacher at her christian school who gave his view in front of a class that disabled kids were born that way because their parents had sinned in their life. Very offensive considering her youngest sister has a severe disability. You've got to admit on so many levels this is wrong. Are you holding the same belief as the school did that this child should not have dared to speak out?

The fact of the matter is that we live in a modern, free society where free speech and debate should be encouraged. Michael Westerman has been found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of a criminal offence in a court of law based on the evidence presented at a trial. He deserves what is coming his way. Ask yourself, how can anyone trust him to preside over a organisation distributing public funds when he's been found guilty of this?

What do you mean by, "If the cap fits"?

?

That is not strictly true.

I agree with this True Brit.

However, I also think that people found guilty by law should serve an appropriate sentence that considers rehabilitation and a re-introduction into society that prevents re-offence.

Yes, they should be villified, but for how long? What about rehabilitation?

If someone has committed a crime but several years later has undergone rehabilitation and is now a "model citizen", would it be fair for someone who carries a grudge to rake it all back up?

The biggest issue I have with discussing crimes (patricularly serious crimes) on a public forum is the possible effect on any victims.

It wouldn't be nice to come on your favourite rugby site only to revisit a traumatic experience.

Without the rule of law we are a rabble but without compassion we are animals.

To start the rehabilitation process there has to be an acceptance of failing or the wrong doing - he was caught red handed on cctv and and doesn't accept that he is guilty.

Until he owns up and regardless of any attempts to put it right - he is a thief and always will be.

I agree 100%.

My comments were about criminals in general, not just this specific case.

Depends on the crime to be honest. There are certain crimes that in my opinion are just unforgivable regardless of whether or not they have been rehabilitated. Murders, sex offences, and targeting/exploiting the most vulnerable people in our society.

I agree to a certain extent with the sentiment, but in real terms who will be the judge of what is unforgivable?

When I was in my teens I had a very black and white draconian view; bring back hanging and extend it to other "serious" crimes, rapists and child sex crimes should have their bits chopped off, re-offending thieves should loose their hands etc. Some may think it OTT, others may agree, in fact some countries still practice similar views.

My views have mellowed over the years and although I still think some crimes are treated far too leniently I now realise that as humans and for our own good, we have to try to find a way to rehabilitate and remove the underlying issues that lead to such acts. (I also accept that there are probably some that are beyond rehabilitation so what do we do with them?)

In this case the motive was pure greed and an addiction to steal to feed that greed. It wasn,t through need or nessesity - he was caught by a self styled sting and still believes he is innocent. I wonder just how much he got away with and at what cost to the club?

He must not be allowed to keep his position as a councillor - He is a thief.

I don't know the bloke to be honest but in the very few interactions I had with him I can honestly say that I didn't like him.



He will find this his worst enemy, people will despise him even more.



Everyone is thinking the same thing.



True. He will find it very hard to be trusted again.

I think they have more chance of being reminded about any crimes, just going past a paper shop.
My 3 local paper shops have signs outside and the paper on the counter.

Very good post.
I fully agree with your last sentence.

How many other people would have been put under suspicion because of his actions??? It is beyond beleif that a business leaves money out as it did anyway.

Let him without sin cast the first stone hey?? He was in a high level position of trust and authority, dealing with issues that have political, ethical and monetary values. He stood for Lord Mayor that indicates his higher moral standing. very disappointed with you Mr Westerman.

Ultimately it can only be the decision of an individual to decide whether they forgive or not. Some people may have faith or beliefs that guide them but it is still their choice alone.



That's a fair point, my belief is that justice should mean justice and not revenge. Although there are as you rightly put there are people who are beyond rehabilitation. And if they are a threat to society then they should be removed from society. For example certain types of predatory paedophiles for examples who see their ways as a sexual preference no different to something like homosexuality. Now the notion that homosexuality can, or should be cured is absurd so as regards the worst kinds of paedophilia they should be removed from society for the protection of kids.

Who reads newspapers nowadays?

Victims of serious crime do not come onto a rugby website and expect to be faced with these issues - we've had this discussion before in relation to a specific crime. Unless you've suddenly become a qualified counsellor you are still talking ball ox.

Who said anything about reading newspapers.
I made the point, about any one going into, or walking past, would see the headlines.



People talk about serious crime all over the place. Anyone who is a victim could still be reminded in any walk of life.
Never tried to portray myself as anything like a qualified counsellor. No idea where you get that from.
So just because you dont agree with something/someone it means they are talking ball ox, as you put it.

Funny that, i dont think that. Everyone is entitled to there opinion. Shame yours is so closed.

If the CCTV was set up on the advice of the police then it sounds like something has been going on for a while but I would not want to accuse anybody of any crimes.

Yes, that could have been a touch OTT, just my frustration at your aparent need to say what's on your mind without thinking whether you should.



Absolutely, as I am entitled to mine, as long as I express it within the rules of the forum. Just because you or I hold an opinion does not make it truth.




I could say "ball ox" again but I'll just say you couldn't be further from the truth.

So just because you don't think i should say something, means i shouldn't say it.
I bet its great having a one way conversation with you





I never said or thought it made it truth. Thats the whole idea of having a opinion. People dont have to disagree or agree with it, but its great to see whats others thoughts are on a subject.




In your mind maybe

We've had this circular debate before and to be quite honest I'm far too happy at the moment to continue in ever decreasing circles. I'll just agree to disagree.








although I am right

Have to agree to disagree on this one.

Now back on topic.

And he is still a thief and should be ashamed of his actions. He should also resign as a councillor.

On this I agree 100%.