Gilbert confessed she spent £28,238 on items for herself, causing her managers to question why budgets were so overstretched.
Defending Gilbert, Adam King said she needed to 'put food on the table' for her children.
...because she takes no shit from the defendant!
But Judge Emma Nott said: 'This is much more than trips to Asda, she wasn't buying 20p tins of beans was she? It was for her children when it should have been for the young vulnerable adults she was looking after.'
Oh, well said!
Judge Emma Nott said: 'Dimensions UK was your employer, a not-for-profit charity that provides essential services to vulnerable young adults with disabilities. From September 11 2015 to April 5 2019 you were stealing routinely and regularly putting your own family's needs first.
'The money should have been spent on essentials and the odd luxury for these young adults who had a background of poverty.
'Instead, you were taking your family to McDonald's, Nando's, and Pizza Hut, taking them to the cinema, Warner Brothers studios and tenpin bowling.
'You stole nearly £30,000 and all you have done since being exposed is attempt to avoid the consequences.'
A judge who isn't taken in by the usual sob story has a price beyond rubies...
The judge blasted Gilbert for being 'full of self-pity' despite committing theft against 'the most vulnerable'.
And she still wasn't finished:
Gilbert, from Bracknell in Berkshire, was sentenced to a two-year prison term, suspended for two years and she will have to pay back every penny of the money she stole.
'I do not care if it takes you 10 years,' the judge added.
We need more like her.
From the look of her, she bought a lot of pies.
ReplyDeleteHer treatment, although correct, is doubtless more harsh than would be dealt out to a Whog, Quhoun, Dark-key, Pack-key or some other gimmigrant parasite.
Where's the father in all this I ask?
This is where the law really is an arse. Gilbert had not been fined the £28,238, which she would have to pay back to the court, which will then be passed on to the victims. Instead, she had been told to pay back the amount directly to the victim. All Gilbert had to do is make one payment, no matter how much it is. It then becomes a civil debt and the victims have to take Gilbert to court, paying the requisite legal fees to lawyers, to have the payments reinstated. Gilbert then makes one more payment and stops. The victims then have to do it all over again, and so on. This is why so many people told to pay compensation, don't bother to do so, after a single basic payment.
ReplyDeleteA time limit to pay, with the threat of imprisonment, the term depending on the outstanding sum, would ensure payments would be made. However, the courts will not do this because, reasons.
Penseivat
"taking your family to McDonald's, Nando's, and Pizza Hut, taking them to the cinema, Warner Brothers studios and tenpin bowling"
ReplyDeletethat is child cruelty right there
"Where's the father in all this I ask?"
ReplyDeleteI think she ate him...
"A time limit to pay, with the threat of imprisonment, the term depending on the outstanding sum, would ensure payments would be made. However, the courts will not do this because, reasons."
Quite! God forbid they ever become effective...
"...that is child cruelty right there..."
You can just imagine how they are going to grow up, can't you?