Kent Police cleaner sacked... for dipping into jar of coffee

[Hope]

Kent Police cleaner sacked... for dipping into jar of coffee (unbelievable )

Paranoid police set up a CCTV sting and raided a man's house after a few spoonfuls of coffee disappeared.
The surveillance operation inside Tonbridge Police Station caught contract cleaner Clifford Mendes, 53, dipping into a jar of Maxwell House on his break.
But police didn't stop there with their efforts to nail their suspect.

Officers executed a search warrant at his home in Maidstone to track down the offending jar of coffee and, although they did not find it, arrested him.
Following an interview at the police station, Mr Mendes - who also worked at the Coldharbour police base - was cautioned for theft and sacked.
Mr Mendes, of St Philips Avenue, said: "It was just a few spoonfuls of coffee, as I found some had gone from my jar.
"I just put a little bit back from another one, and that's what they showed me film of. They kept asking me about bananas that had been taken, but I didn't take anything else."

After signing the caution in October, Mr Mendes found himself sacked from his four-and-half-year job with cleaning contract firm QAS.
And since then he has been unable to find work as CRB checks bring up the caution for miscellaneous theft.
He said: "I just signed it because I wanted it to end. It was a nightmare. They never told me about anything else that they thought I had taken; it was just the coffee.

"But now I can't get another job as it is on my record. I feel as though I have been made a scapegoat."
Mr Mendes has written to the chief constable Ian Learmonth, to appeal his caution, but was told that cautions are only removed from a person's record in exceptional circumstances - and that his would stay.
Police say Mr Mendes' caution related to theft of coffee, an officer's shirt, and some petty cash, although Mr Mendes disputs this saying: "It was only for the coffee."

DI Chris Benson, from Kent Police, said: "Honesty and integrity of these employees must always be upheld. In this instance, a sub contractor admitted to stealing property from Tonbridge police station on a number of occasions."
Thursday, February 09 2012

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2012/february/10/coffee_thief.aspx

[Hoops]

no. stop being sensationalist, that is a media ploy and part of how they control, you disrespect your own intelligence by spreading it. It is a media disease, and the media is as close to evil as this world has!

He was sacked for stealing clothes, money and coffee. And that is perfectly proper.

90% of thieves swear blind they didn't do it. The statement is that he admitted theft of the items - if they put that out in the public domain and it was not true he would be suing the police for substantial amounts of money. Come on people. Don't look for the cheap shots, it undermines when you have a genuine point with substance.

[Freeman Stephen]

Where is a cleaner going to get the money to sue the police? Even if he is lucky enough to find a lawyer who can be arsed with the hassle on a no win no fee basis the chances are the cleaner will shit himself from suing people who do things like dale farm or menezes without a flinch of concience. Only last week i had a cop threatening me with all kinds of shit against both me and my family if i dont pay a thirty pound fine i didnt even attempt to dispute with him. This is a common or garden experience for everyone who doesn't get all grovelling and theres about as much chance of even one cop being jailed for their institutionalised criminality as that cleaner has of staying out of jail if he tries to sue. I dont know if he did something wrong or not but to claim he is guilty because he didn't sue the biggest armed gang outside a military base is from a position of complete detachment from the real world.

[Hoops]

and to assume he isnt because the media wanted a headline is to be a bigger mug than the cup he put the coffee in. (I know you are saying you don't know whether he is guilty or not, and I can't argue with that standpoint). I think though, considering the payout that would be involved with such a case, there would be PLENTY of companies willing to work on a no win, no fee basis, he wouldn't need a penny to sue the police. Thats the way it works in these litigious times...

[pedawson]

and to assume he isnt because the media wanted a headline is to be a bigger mug than the cup he put the coffee in. (I know you are saying you don't know whether he is guilty or not, and I can't argue with that standpoint). I think though, considering the payout that would be involved with such a case, there would be PLENTY of companies willing to work on a no win, no fee basis, he wouldn't need a penny to sue the police. Thats the way it works in these litigious times...

Your ignorance of the litigation process is astounding.
First off he may well have been to an attorney and they may well have given him some advice.
I have been through a similar process and it was a nightmare. I was in constant contact with the prosecuting attorney and was constantly reminded of the futility of my actions.
at first I did not use an attorney because of costs and made significant progress, however the other attorney was adamant that I could not speak with him without.
So I got a cheap attorney - a labour lawyer, instructed him I would do the leg work and he would check out what I was doing.
Mine was not about theft, although this process does not make any difference, it is about negotiating an OUT.
I like this chap was screwed over and it was about damage control.

The process takes roughly 1 to 3 years to finalise, 3 years if the prosecution wish it to be so, and that is a fact. One that I was made clear on, and it did.
Pre trial threats are common and put the faint-hearted on the back foot and more often than not settle for the shit end of the stick
As you may have gathered I am not one of the faint-hearted. He may well be. (I won and was awarded what I was due and ALL costs)

This individual may or may not be guilty of the crimes he is accused of, but that, to the prosecuting attorney makes no difference. His task is to deflect and incur.
If and this is a BIG IF he was guilty the police would have him in court NOW for the crimes he is supposed to have committed, as I see it this has not happened. I am not following the case so I don't know and I am open to be corrected.
But for the sake of this post lets assume he hasn't.
A crime is supposed to have been committed and as such the perpetrator should have been prosecuted and then if found guilty be sacked or do time or fined AND sacked.
As it stands he was only fired, and I can only assume he was told by the prosecuting attorney that if he challenged their authority they would follow through with prosecution. It is absolutely possible and is more likely to be the case.
What would an individual, who is not trained, do? GIVE UP and walk away. No shame in that.
Where the real problem lay is what was said by all concerned and if I know anything the police would have thrown their cumulative and extensive fiat around to scare off any rebuttal.
Anyone who has ever been to court will know that the authorities are relentless in their pursuit to prove their point regardless of innocence or guilt.
Regardless of win no fee or another type of justice this fellow will have been given the run down and chose not to follow through, apparently this gives rise to a guilty verdict.
I see it this way there is no harm in walking away and bygones be bygones, however he has walked away with a cloud of doubt over his actions.

We in this country have a system (should be) that states a person is innocent until proven guilty and he has not been in a court room that has past either so by our own rules he is innocent. The police have NOT pushed for a case against him and this MUST (should) count FOR him not against him.

His actions may have been totally innocent, however knowing how these things work he has chosen to accept what he was told and walked away. One can only imagine what that was, I am sure in my own mind. What is absolutely clear here is that WE the freemen have settled on the innocent side of the fence, because of what I have stated here, but Hoops you have fallen on the guilty side, or so it seems. Which is what this poor unfortunate will have been given.

Any man who has the capability to presume guilt before a case has been heard and without any evidence or inside knowledge is NOT fit to be in service. Be that a policeman / woman or serviceman or woman.

We argue / debate that pre judgement of a crime is unlawful and unethical - this should also follow the decision of the accused - He decided NOT to go through with anything and as such is not judged and as a result should be, by default - INNOCENT. But accepted that doing so he looses his right to go back to work because there is doubt on the part of the employer.

Namaste, rev;

[pitano1]

http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/Eurorealist/corpus_juris.html

`We would never accept the sudden imposition of a totalitarian police state, so if it is to be done, it has to be done gradually by stealth, one step at a time. These various measures should not be seen in isolation. Many people quite close to the top positions of power may not be aware of the full picture – MPs and others do not have time to become familiar with the whole range of bills and proposals that are put before parliament. The security and intelligence services are not answerable to Parliament and their activities remain hidden from view in the interests of so called "national security". Our freedoms are being gradually eroded… what will come next? As it is, with real power vested in unelected and unaccountable commissioners bankers and bureaucrats, democratic principles are already alien to the EU. It is submitted that the building blocks are being put into place whereby soon we could find ourselves living in a dictatorship in which protest will become increasingly difficult and ultimately will not even be tolerated. All power tends to corrupt but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

the case of the coffee/clothes is a prime example of how this insidious creeping type of unlawful
justice for sale system has been inflicted upon the ordinary guy.

personally i dont care if he was guilty or not,but what we should all be concerned about is the lack of due process.

this storm in a teacup is going to follow him round for how long.?

whatever happened to,your sacked,`now fuck off.

not politically correct.?

were their any polititions there.

can anyone think or act independently these days.

[Hoops]

And your ignorance of the charge process is astounding. Neither litigation nor charging is the issue here though, so let's both keep focus

My point is the initial one made.

What is your stance - does the media CONTROL through sensationalism and devious presentation of facts to support the agenda of TPTB or not? My understanding was you believed yes. It has always been one of my interests and beliefs, and a point of crossover.

That being the case, the ease with which you will proffer media garbage like the above as evidence of ANYTHING is what is really astounding. It is essentially having your cherry bakewell and eating it. If media is divisive agenda ridden crap, don't use it just because the flavour of their day is to your taste, it undermines you. Fact.

[pedawson]

Kent Police cleaner sacked... for dipping into jar of coffee (unbelievable )

Paranoid police set up a CCTV sting and raided a man's house after a few spoonfuls of coffee disappeared.
The surveillance operation inside Tonbridge Police Station caught contract cleaner Clifford Mendes, 53, dipping into a jar of Maxwell House on his break.
But police didn't stop there with their efforts to nail their suspect.

Officers executed a search warrant at his home in Maidstone to track down the offending jar of coffee and, although they did not find it, arrested him.
Following an interview at the police station, Mr Mendes - who also worked at the Coldharbour police base - was cautioned for theft and sacked.
Mr Mendes, of St Philips Avenue, said: "It was just a few spoonfuls of coffee, as I found some had gone from my jar.
"I just put a little bit back from another one, and that's what they showed me film of. They kept asking me about bananas that had been taken, but I didn't take anything else."

After signing the caution in October, Mr Mendes found himself sacked from his four-and-half-year job with cleaning contract firm QAS.
And since then he has been unable to find work as CRB checks bring up the caution for miscellaneous theft.
He said: "I just signed it because I wanted it to end. It was a nightmare. They never told me about anything else that they thought I had taken; it was just the coffee.

"But now I can't get another job as it is on my record. I feel as though I have been made a scapegoat."
Mr Mendes has written to the chief constable Ian Learmonth, to appeal his caution, but was told that cautions are only removed from a person's record in exceptional circumstances - and that his would stay.
Police say Mr Mendes' caution related to theft of coffee, an officer's shirt, and some petty cash, although Mr Mendes disputs this saying: "It was only for the coffee."

DI Chris Benson, from Kent Police, said: "Honesty and integrity of these employees must always be upheld. In this instance, a sub contractor admitted to stealing property from Tonbridge police station on a number of occasions."
Thursday, February 09 2012

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2012/february/10/coffee_thief.aspx

And your ignorance of the charge process is astounding. Neither litigation nor charging is the issue here though, so let's both keep focus

My point is the initial one made.

Don't need to understand the charge process for this

What is your stance

Well apparently you are stating that the journalism in this piece is slanted towards ??? What exactly?

I read this piece an stated I haven't looked into it just read this piece.
And I can confirm that he was CHARGED and there were NO prosecution. Am I correct so far?
He now HAS a 'RECORD (CRB)' is this true or is it NOT?
He has not been convicted so HOW can he have a RECORD that will stand as evidence. Yes he admitted to taking some coffee and explained what he had taken but is this really theft? Maybe you thing so but when I have found someone taking my tea bags at work or borrowing my work jacket I have got another jacket and asked for them to - one day - let me take a tea bag of theirs. Problem solved.

Sensationalism, on the part of the press? I am not too sure, I think I might have reported it the same way because it beggars so much belief on every level it does not warrant being taken seriously.
I believe the police took this to an all time level just because they believe - "Honesty and integrity of these employees must always be upheld"
Can we honestly say for the same of the police in quite a few other 'CRIMES'? maybe maybe not but coffee theft is not high on my agenda - beating, kettling and sexual abuse IS.
As with this case the sentence - none existent by the way - does not fit the crime.
Double standards - in plain view.

It would be a different matter all together if every policeman or woman got the sack for doing wrong - but they DON'T. No honesty or integrity here is there.
I didn't say it "DI Chris Benson, from Kent Police, said it". Rather a sticky one to write the way out of that one.

The journalism neither came down on the police or the suspect in this piece, so I don't know to which piece you are referring.
The most disturbing and sick thing about this is NOT the theft but that the police CAN and HAVE criminalised someone and all for a minor infringement.
Hoops, you are NOT in this position and I hope for your sake you never get on the wrong side of the police because this is an example of just how flexible they can be. Being a part of this force and enforcing these 'SO CALLED LAWS' exasperates the public and heightens the resolve to make drastic changes of the system.

My piece stands and is as far as I can say correct.

Namaste, rev;

[Hoops]

But you are choosing to accept that this whole police action was based on coffee. That is the headline, and the media slant. The statement from police is quite specific, and states theft of coffee, CASH and CLOTHING.

I would agree, this action over someone using a spoon of coffee would be absolutely ludicrous. In fact, even the man himself admits he didn't just help himself to a cup of coffee, he was pouring coffee from someone else's jar into his own - a subtle but important difference, if you have paid for the coffee. Still doesn't warrant the action, but IS theft nonetheless.

I am absolutely certain a police body would not just make up theft of cash and clothing if it did not exist - and you can all scoff from an honesty perspective, but simply from self preservation and opening themselves up to compensation if that was not able to be evidenced, it simply would not happen. So this piece which clearly chooses to present itself as though a man has been convicted (by police caution) of a crime for merely having a cup of coffee at work is pathetically sensationalist, and palpable bullshit.

I can't believe you can't see the irony of you using a media piece to support an argument. They should be your first and highest priority to expose as untrustworthy and in the pockets of the agenda-ridden rich. Will you keep ignoring this, the crux of my point of posting? Or do you trust this news outlet because the piece is anti police and you want to bang a cheap drum? It is a rational point I am making to you.

[pedawson]

WAS there a prosecution and if not WHY not?

Namaste, rev;