Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

It's a question of character, surely? Hacking a computer for political gain shows a certain buccaneering spirit. Lusting after a better 'phone because you are jealous of those your colleagues have been given is just cheap.
1
@Notalloldpeople Your sense of values is very different from mine , then. You would reward greed and avarice, but condemn actions which may well have been for the public good?
1
@geraldhewing329 It may have been. It depends what information was gained and what was done with it. The essential point, surely, is that a crime carried out to gain political advantage is capable of several interpretations, whereas one committed for personal gain has but one.
1
She wanted her boss to give her a nice, new shiny phone, which is why she did it. There is some doubt whether the mugging actually took place at all.
1
@anglonorse2943 No need to. The charge against her was one of fraud, not of wasting police time. The case was brought because she had falsely represented that her phone had been stolen, and in doing so had fraudulently obtained a new one.
1
@anglonorse2943 I imagine this was a reasonable compromise. It would have been difficult to prove she made the whole thing up, whereas it was clear she had gained by falsely claiming the phone had been stolen. She pleaded guilty and was treated leniently. Justice is done and seen to be done.
1
@anglonorse2943 Not at all. I plead not guilty. She was guilty of a deceit for personal gain. She admitted it and was mildly chastised. She was blinded by lust for a shiny object and took foolish risks in order to gratify her lust. Have I said anything different?
1
@anglonorse2943 My opinion doesn't enter into it. These are facts. The only question at issue is whether or not she was actually mugged, but the phone wasn't taken, and she took the opportunity to obtain one of the new super-shiny work phones which were being handed out by saying it was - OR she just made up the whole story to get a police crime number to show her employers to get the phone she craved.
1
@anglonorse2943 I think wishful thinking would be that she left her phone at home - turned off -was mugged and thought the phone had been stolen, and then indented for one of the new ones she apparently desired. If that had been the case she would not have been charged with fraud, would she? Much less have pleaded guilty to it. It was her employers who informed the police, the use of the phone having shown up on their computer. The calls were traced to her home. She left their employ shortly afterwards. The idea that this was all a silly girlish mistake just doesn't hold water. She was wise to plead guilty to the simple fraud and get the matter dealt with quickly. More serious charges could have been brought.
1
@anglonorse2943 Then why did she admit to fraud? If you want to be pedantic, the records of the court prove it. The opinion is a legal one.
1
@anglonorse2943 She was let off lightly, and rightly so. But she still did it. What's more she's still wriggling and pretending she didn't. I don't think the crime itself should preclude her from office - it was youthful peccadillo. I meant it when I said she shouldn't resign - but she should at least cough to it. That would have been best all round.
1
@anglonorse2943 Who else's would I put?
1
@anglonorse2943 Neither are yours. My opinions in this matter do tend to accord with the facts and with human nature, however.
1
@anglonorse2943 Aren't we getting a bit tired of this? My "unsubstantiated smears" are a combination of an acknowledgment of a decision by a court and a reasoned assessment of a likelihood, with clear caveat that there is a possibility that this likelihood is wrong (the word "likelihood" giving this away rather.) I think she probably made the whole thing up, although it is possible she was mugged and decided to pretend the phone had been nicked in order to get a new one. Your apparent notion, that the sweet little thing was so terribly confused that she forgot she had turned her phone off and left it in a drawer simply strains credibility beyond all limits.
1
@anglonorse2943 (Sigh) And no more can you! She is a convicted criminal, convicted of fraud. That is not an unsubstantiated smear, it is a fact. The only question is the method she used to commit the crime.
1
@anglonorse2943 She was convicted of fraud. This is not an unsubstantiated smear. It is a fact. The only matter in dispute is the way in which the fraud was perpetrated.
1
@anglonorse2943 What is a vile smear attack in suggesting that a convicted fraudster may well have concocted a fraud? The conviction is spent, but the offence still took place. She did what she did, and what she did was wrong. She was reprimanded and forgiven, but she still did it.
1
@anglonorse2943 I'm going to pack this in now. I have every confidence that we will find something more profitable to argue about before very long.
1
...or haven't been caught!
1
@emm_arr I just can't unpick that! It's your immense reasoning powers at work again, I suppose.
1
She should not have resigned. Her offence was based on avarice and jealousy (her phone wasn't apparently as up-to-date as those of some of her fellow-workers), contempt for the law (she faked a mugging), disregard for the convenience of others (she tied up police time in pursuing a fictitious crime) and sheer stupidity. (She later used her old phone which was detected by her employers.) As I say, she should not have resigned. Avarice, jealousy, contempt for the law and sheer stupidity are characteristics which make this woman supremely qualified to serve in our present government.
1
@anglonorse2943 As I said, she should not have resigned. He character and personality are well enough suited to a career in politics, whatever party she chooses to support. I will say though lusting after a more up-to-date 'phone does strike one as being a bit infra-dig.
1
@emm_arr That's why she did it. He colleagues had been given better phones and she thought if she could get rid of her old one, she'd get one of the shiny new ones. It worked too.
1
@anglonorse2943 I don't think you have to be very clever to guess her motives. It is a view which is widely circulated entirely credible.
1
@emm_arr Why else?
1
@adamlea6339 It's in the court case, She was charged with fraud through misrepresentation, the allegation being that she had pretended her phone was stolen in order to get one of the shiny new ones. She pleaded guilty. The question of whether or not a mugging actually took place remains moot. It was the way she got her new phone that was the subject of the charge.
1
@emm_arr It was in the court case. She was charged with fraud through misrepresentation. The offence was the way in which she had acquired her new phone - through dishonestly claiming her old one had been stolen. Her motive was greed for a new phone. What else?
1