Can you help me out a little bit.

Your point is?

My point is, to those who cannot understand, the one who has never done anything wrong in his/her life can be the first to come forward and point the poison finger. This forum is full of posts that cast stones, as the poster above said "people in glass houses" etc. If you think this is a personal attack on you, Guess Who, then you are wrong, but just in case, there is another well known saying, "If the cap fits".

Rubbish. This wasn't pinching an envelope from the stationery cupboard - it was taking someone else's money. FFS!

That envelope was paid for by someone else's money, was it not?

don't be silly.

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.