Is it really worthwhile to debate the issue with someone who can't even understand that there is a real difference between criminal law and and labour legislation as he has shown from the very beginning of this topic?
I mean, even his basic reading skills have proven questionable, or his ability to make a point given that he tried to pin his own mistakes on me. Am I being nasty by saying that? Probably, but it shouldn't be so hard for someone to understand that if you're dealing with an expert in a certain legal field it's not so smart to pick a fight. Yet he didn't get that and started blabbering about facts that were irrelevant and bring up examples that were not even closely related to the question asked.
Congratulations America
All I'm wondering is if the description in the OP is a description of an actual case, since I could only find one similar case and that case was very different indeed.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Congratulations America
I'm only harping on this because these weren't minor adjustments and the two cases (if they really are two different cases ) having two different outcomes. If it's so that the case RB posted was, in fact, based on the one I found, but modified in order to justify a different outcome... then, in a system that relies on rulings in past cases... well, I just don't understand how that works.
Of course I'm willing to concede that the description provided in the OP is a complete and accurate description of a case that is different from the one I found, but in that case I must conclude that England is a funny place where criminal manager-duos go around stealing thousands of pounds from safes and then suing their employers when they're fired
Think it's odd, that's all.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If that were the case it would have been a bad example from the outset. I doubt they changed the example to get the desired outcome. That would be outright silly.
Congratulations America