Single mom of 4 fired from Timmies after giving a baby a Timbit

[1feral1]

People make a big stink about these types of stories because it is only 16 cents worth of dough to a big company and a poor single mother can't feed her kids.  But it is about a culture of not giving out goods for free that a franchisee is trying to create at their outlet.  If every employee was doing this, the cost would soon be in the hundreds of dollars a day.  So that worker stole 16 cents from the company.  The same as if she opened the cash register and handed it out in coins. I can see the value in having a policy of free timbits for kids to build goodwill, but this store wasn't doing that and it isn't up to employees to decide policy.  She was very smart to go public with it, as it probably saved her job. 
This story reminds of the Jack Nicholson quote from As Good As It Gets: "When I picture a woman, I think of a man and take away any sense of responsibility and accountability".  I think people would be quicker to say "Break the rules, pay the price", if it were a man in question.

I am suprised with your response. With all the usual left winged do gooder polices which you seem to support, I would have thought you would have a much more supportive view than I even did.

Comparing dough to dollars, the handing out of a timbit, comparing a man to a woman, and then bringing up the hands in the till thing is just BS Neil.

Think twice before you post, eh.

A new high in low as far as I am concerned.

 

[neilinkorea]

I am suprised with your response. With all the usual left winged do gooder polices which you seem to support, I would have thought you would have a much more supportive view than I even did.

Comparing dough to dollars, the handing out of a timbit, comparing a man to a woman, and then bringing up the hands in the till thing is just BS Neil.

Think twice before you post, eh.

A new high in low as far as I am concerned.

Well Wesley, it seems like you have never had the experience of owning a business or having your pay based on the performance of a business that you manage.  If you did, you would feel differently about the comparison of dough and money.  To the business that has to pay CASH to purchace the flour, eggs, sugar etc that goes into said dough, then has to pay CASH to employees to combine and bake the ingredients to make that timbit, the timbit represents exactally that, CASH.  I bet the owner of that store can tell you exactally how much it costs to make a timbit.  So to him or her it is exactally the same as taking money out of the till.  It will have exactally the same effect on the balance sheet.  It isn't BS, as you so eloquently put it, it is the perspective of the person looking at the timbit.

I am not a left wing do gooder.  I'm a realist who decides on the facts, not emotion.  You seem to be affected by the sentiment of a single mother with bills and allow that emotion to cloud the fact that to a business all inventory represents CASH.  They have to pay for it, and until they sell it are on the hook for the bill.  This is the risk taken by businesspepole that allows them to make money, or lose money if they don't monitor their expenses.  We don't know what the store policy was on free timbits.  We know she got caught giving one away and management was unhappy about it.  As for the woman thing, if it isn't an issue, why did she tell the paper she is a single mother.  If this was strictly a black/white, right/wrong issue based on the facts and policy, there would be no need to bring it up.  People know that there is sympathy out there for mothers working to take care of their kids.  That isn't a bad thing.  To pretend it doesn't exist is naive at best.

Wesley Down Under, perhaps it is you who should think twice before posting.

 

[1feral1]

Firstly IMHO your posts have left wing written all over them, so be happy being a LWDG. Need I say more, but thats fair enough, as its a democracy, although I strongly disagree with 99.99999999% of them, its your democratic right to believe in what you want, and if it makes you feel good, then so be it.

I think its good that a person, regardless of sex, is out working rather than doing the vampire thing, sucking the blood out of our welfare system, and what this person is doing is having a sense of pride and self worth. She has a conscience. Good on her, its got nothing to do with 4 kids etc.

Well, I look at it this way, good customer relationships by spending timbit money usually involves in making a repeat customer, who keeps coming back for more, so an investment of a 16c timbit could equate to much much more from a happy repeat customer over time, who buys donuts and expensive coffee, which is warm water overall, and thats where the money is made, off that and fountain drinks like Coke etc.

The best advertising is word of mouth, so from that one timbit in this case can generate much more genuine $$ profit than a petty 16c worth of dough, and that one customer could generate 10 other customers, and so on, and so on.

Try seeing outside the square rather than from within, and instead of being a 'realist'  ??? as you put it, be more entrepreneurial, smile and build a solid repeat customer base, as opposed to being a Scrouge, and a tight ass. You got to spend money to make money.

If you worked for me, and fired that employee, you'd be FIRED for making such a potentially damaging situation, which involved UNWANTED bad press to my establishment.

Meanwhile on a Saturday night in paradise, I am going to have another CC and coke (Edit: no-name cola).

 

[neilinkorea]

Firstly your posts have left wing written all over them, so be happy being a LWDG. Need I say more, but thats fair enough, as its a democracy, although I strongly disagree with 99.99999% of them, its your democratic right to beleive in what you want, and if it makes you feel good, then so be it.

Well, I look at it this way, good customer relationships by spending timbit money usually involves in making a repeat customer, who keeps coming back for more, so an investment of a 16c timbit could equate to much much more from a happy repeat customer over time, who buys donuts and expensive coffee, which is warm water overall, and thats where the money is made, off that and fountain drinks like Coke etc.

The best advertising is word of mouth, so from that one timbit in this case can generate much more genuine $$ profit than a petty 16c worth of dough, and that one customer could genrate 10 other customers, and so on, and so on.

Try seeing outside the square rather than from within, and instead of being a 'realist'  ??? as you put it, be more entrepreneurial, smile and build a solid repeat customer base, as opposed to being a Scrouge, and a tight ***. You got to spend money to make money.

If you read my earlier posts, you will see I agree with this.  However, give aways aren't the employees decision to make, even if the action is good for the company, in their mind.  The management dictates policy like that.  What if a private in the army decided that one bullet isn't that expensive and the practice he could get with it would help the army in the long run, so it is really OK if he takes it home.  What would the chain of command think about that?  It is the same as when shoplifters are charged with the same crime(in Canada) of theft under $5000.00 if they steal one gummie bear or a $4999.99 TV.  Stealing is stealing to a business.  This isn't an argument about promotions stratagies for Tim's though.  It is one about theft.  What she did was theft unless it was authorized by the management, which they seem to claim it wasn't.  You can put the face of a single mother on it, call me names, do whatever you like.  It is still theft.  I wouldn't fire someone for a first offence, but IF she was warned before, it was she who was putting her family in jeopardy by breaking the rules at work, not her employer for firing her.  That is where the responsibility and accountability come in to play.

As an aside, there are not only 2 ways to think that are mutually exclusive.  It is so rediculous to boil everything down to left wing and right wing.  It really limits your options and freedom when you approach an argument that way.  There is no such thing as the "right wing team" and "left wing team".  There are facts and wishy wasy sentiments.  Fact, she stole 16 cents worth of merchandise from her employer.  Wish washy sentiment, she is a single mom and even though this could be the culmination of several warnings she shouldn't be fired.

 

[1feral1]

I am not calling you names, just referring to you as a happy LWDG, nothing wrong with that is there? Seems you got a bit of an anger manangement issue or some type of agenda?? Maybe you should indulge in a whisky (or some South Korean hootch and a trip to the local knock shop  ) or two to loosen you up. It works (has woked tonight - no knock shop though) for me.

Well chum, remind me never to invest in a Tim Horton's with you.

It would fail.

I'll be sticking to my day job.

Charging someone over a 16c donut dough would be a waste of time in court, and it would never get that far anyways. Too many REAL losers out there to worry about a whopping 16c, and no its not theft. You have to have criminal intent, and prove that in court. It is pretty much is non existant and so obviously in this case.

You would be the laughing stock of the PCMIS (Saskatchewan) if you tried to have someone charged.

Time yet for more of that fine CC whisky.

EDITed for clarity  ;D

 

[neilinkorea]

I am not calling you names, just referring to you as a happy LWDG, nothing wrong with that is there. Seems you got a bit of an anger manangement issue?? Maybe you should indulge in a whisky (some South korean hootch and a trip to the local knock shop) or two to loosen you up. It works (has woked tonight - no knock shop though) for me.

Well chum, remind me never to invest in a Tim Horton's with you.

It would fail.

I'll be sticking to my day job.

Charging someone over a 16c donought would be a waste of time in court, and it would never get that far anyways. Too many REAL losers out there to worry about a whopping 16c, and no its not theft. You have to have criminal intent, and prove that in court. It is pretty much is non existant and so obviously in this case.

You would be the laughing stock of the PCMIS (Saskatchewan) if you tried to have someone charged.

Time yet for more of that fine CC whisky

I think being told not to do something, if she in fact was, and doing it anyway would constitute criminal intent.  I am just trying to make a point that she is responsible for her actions.  I wouldn't have the heart to fire a single mom with kids over something like that, but that doesn't mean the manager wasn't within their rights to do so.

Enjoy the CC and the rest of your evening Wesley

 

[1feral1]

Enjoy the CC and the rest of your evening Wesley

You too Neil

 

[Celticgirl]

I think its good that a person, regardless of sex, is out working rather than doing the vampire thing, sucking the blood out of our welfare system, and what this person is doing is having a sense of pride and self worth. She has a conscience. Good on her, its got nothing to do with 4 kids etc.

Exactly. Regardless of sex, she is a working parent. There is no other adult in the household whose second income she can fall back on. It has nothing to do with her gender.

Well, I look at it this way, good customer relationships by spending timbit money usually involves in making a repeat customer, who keeps coming back for more, so an investment of a 16c timbit could equate to much much more from a happy repeat customer over time, who buys donuts and expensive coffee, which is warm water overall, and thats where the money is made, off that and fountain drinks like Coke etc.

The best advertising is word of mouth, so from that one timbit in this case can generate much more genuine $$ profit than a petty 16c worth of dough, and that one customer could generate 10 other customers, and so on, and so on.

Good publicity is worth more than a few Timbits. How much does Tim Horton's invest annually in advertising? A heck of a lot more than what they 'lose' by giving Timbits out to children and dogs. Furthermore, who buys individual Timbits? Usually people buy a box full. A Timbit here and there given out from any franchise is not going to affect their profits. In fact, it should do the opposite as Wes suggested - it will bring more customers in because of the good customer service.

 

[armyvern]

People make a big stink about these types of stories because it is only 16 cents worth of dough to a big company and a poor single mother can't feed her kids.  But it is about a culture of not giving out goods for free that a franchisee is trying to create at their outlet.  If every employee was doing this, the cost would soon be in the hundreds of dollars a day.  So that worker stole 16 cents from the company.  The same as if she opened the cash register and handed it out in coins. I can see the value in having a policy of free timbits for kids to build goodwill, but this store wasn't doing that and it isn't up to employees to decide policy.  She was very smart to go public with it, as it probably saved her job. 
This story reminds of the Jack Nicholson quote from As Good As It Gets: "When I picture a woman, I think of a man and take away any sense of responsibility and accountability".  I think people would be quicker to say "Break the rules, pay the price", if it were a man in question.

I think being told not to do something, if she in fact was, and doing it anyway would constitute criminal intent.  I am just trying to make a point that she is responsible for her actions.  I wouldn't have the heart to fire a single mom with kids over something like that, but that doesn't mean the manager wasn't within their rights to do so.

Enjoy the CC and the rest of your evening Wesley

From the article about the Timbit incident:

Employee Fired

Timbits are small balls of glazed dough that sell for $0.16.
Lilliman has said she didn't think much about giving the Timbit to the 11-month-old child, who came in with a regular customer on Monday. She said staff members often give Timbits to pets and children and that she was trying to calm the child.

Just how, in the world that is yours, does "staff members often give Timbits to pets and children" (IN the very Tim Hortons in question regarding this incident) turn into your: "but this store wasn't doing that"??

And, just how does doing what seems to be commonly accepted practise at this very Tim Hortons establishment ... turn into "formed criminal intent"??

I'm curious ... because in my world, it's got nothing to do with the manager firing an employee who formed any criminal intent, nor does it have SFA to do with her sex or familial status. It's got to do with an employee (ANY employee) being FIRED over a 16 cent Timbit that was/is regularily given away by staff members in that particular franchise to children and animals.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let me repost:

I've seen tons of this type of complaint come through the office. When delved into, and all the facts from both sides are laid bare, quite often the termination of employment is just a culmination of a lot of other events and contraventions. Not all, but enough to take this one with a grain of salt.

There is a good possibility she would have lost her wrongful dismissal complaint, which is why it may have been tried in the media. However, even if they'd won, TH took the high road and ate the PC media hype. If this has been the case, and she is a chronic offender of the company policy, you can rest assured it will be dealt with a little better next time.

I won't render judgement one way or the other, the pertinent info just isn't available to make an informed decision, and I'm not easily swayed by sob stories.

Let's not lose sight of the original subject and derail this with pseudo social commentary on the neglected masses of society.

Don't fixate on this one incident. There's not enough evidence in the media, one way or the other. It has come out the the relationship between her and the manager was strained. Was it personal, a relationship gone bad? Or professional, a long standing history of transgressions? She chose to have it tried in the media, vice the Min of Labour Employment Standards branch and the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB). To me that's telling right there, as, if she was in the right and gone this route, she likely would have received a settlement and reinstatement. This has nothing to do with a 16 cent Timbit. As for looking at being hired back as proof of wrongful dismissal, it's easier to hire her back than face the PR bullshit of the media case. If she has had past violations of policy, she's now in a situation where there is an impartial manager in charge now, at a new place of work. Being with the same franchise owner, in a different location, her written record will follow her and can be used in future incidents, should they happen. Policy and procedure is a funny thing, if one rule is broken, no matter how small, and not dealt with, the whole manual is called into question on it's validity.

Once more, there is not enough (hard) evidence to begin even attempting to lay blame on either side. Anything in this thread is speculation, and it's not fair, to either side, to try lay blame one way or another.

 

[armyvern]

Or perhaps even ... the manager has always just been an asshole and ergo the underlying tensions -- and was just cruising for a "just" reason to fire someone who thought so and made no bones about it. Perhaps, she's never done anything wrong besides calling a spade a spade and a manager on a power trip doesn't usually like that.  I've had supervisors who just didn't damn well like me either -- and it wasn't because I did anything wrong.

I figure -- the same franchisee owner hired her back -- and if there had actually existed "just cause" and she was so terrible and bad an employee -- that wouldn't have happened. Media or no media. Are we sure that she didn't go to tribunal and file a complaint after her firing on Monday as an "unjust fire" and that that was how the media caught wind of it in the first place?

Are we sure that it was even she who went to the media in the first place?? Perhaps even, another member of the staff went to the media with this story about "an asshole manager who just fired one of my co-workers who hasn't done anything wrong and who handed out a free timbit like the rest of us do every day?"

Let's be careful not to infer that it "may" have been just, just because it did make it to the media or didn't go to tribunal. There is no evidence that SHE went to the media with the story, or even that she didn't make an immediate complaint. Using the fact that it is in the media as a basis of saying it may have been "just" is a fallacy in and of itself.

Perhaps, it really is all just about a 16 cent timbit, and a manager who, for whatever reason, just didn't like someone ... and got caught themself in the end.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Well then the employees of the Tims near my place are all guilty of giving away much more than timbits, don't know how may times I get free XLG DD from them when I show up in DEU's

 

[neilinkorea]

From the article about the Timbit incident:

Employee Fired
Just how, in the world that is yours, does "staff members often give Timbits to pets and children" (IN the very Tim Hortons in question regarding this incident) turn into your: "but this store wasn't doing that"??

And, just how does doing what seems to be commonly accepted practise at this very Tim Hortons establishment ... turn into "formed criminal intent"??

I'm curious ... because in my world, it's got nothing to do with the manager firing an employee who formed any criminal intent, nor does it have SFA to do with her sex or familial status. It's got to do with an employee (ANY employee) being FIRED over a 16 cent Timbit that was/is regularily given away by staff members in that particular franchise to children and animals.

Just because employees were doing it doesn't mean it was store policy.  Maybe this lady was to be the example to set the rest of the employees in line.Hard to imagine they claimed she was fired for it if it was an approved policy.  The value of the timbit is irrelevant.  The store may want a culture of limiting free things given out by staff because it is a slippery slope.  If it is ok to give 1 timbit then 2 must be ok, if 2 is ok then 3 .....and so on. 

I worked at another coffee chain when I was in high school.  One day the owner's mother came to the store.  The owner asked me to get his mother a coffee and then he gave me the money for it and told me to ring it into the till.  I was a bit surprised by this.  Later I asked him why he did that if he owns the store.  He said that he wants all of the workers to see that they are handling something of value that isn't just given away.  If it goes out, it needs to be accounted for.  He said that he didn't want workers to become too used to giving away the product for free because it could get out of control.  We still gave free coffee to on duty police, but we kept track of it.  Many people are against management and call them cheap, but that is easy to say when it isn't your money going out.

As for criminal intent, IF she was told not to do it beforehand, and she knowingly did it, how could it be anything other than intentional?  If she wasnt told not to give them out and it was accepted practice at the store then the whole argument is moot and she did nothing wrong.  That is the point we don't know.  So, it is impossible to say who is right or wrong, her or the manager.  So don't make a saint of her ora devil of the manager just yet, and vice versa.

 

[FastEddy]

Well Wesley, it seems like you have never had the experience of owning a business or having your pay based on the performance of a business that you manage.  If you did, you would feel differently about the comparison of dough and money.  To the business that has to pay CASH to purchace the flour, eggs, sugar etc that goes into said dough, then has to pay CASH to employees to combine and bake the ingredients to make that timbit, the timbit represents exactally that, CASH.  I bet the owner of that store can tell you exactally how much it costs to make a timbit.  So to him or her it is exactally the same as taking money out of the till.  It will have exactally the same effect on the balance sheet.  It isn't BS, as you so eloquently put it, it is the perspective of the person looking at the timbit.

I am not a left wing do gooder.  I'm a realist who decides on the facts, not emotion.  You seem to be affected by the sentiment of a single mother with bills and allow that emotion to cloud the fact that to a business all inventory represents CASH.  They have to pay for it, and until they sell it are on the hook for the bill.  This is the risk taken by businesspepole that allows them to make money, or lose money if they don't monitor their expenses.  We don't know what the store policy was on free timbits.  We know she got caught giving one away and management was unhappy about it.  As for the woman thing, if it isn't an issue, why did she tell the paper she is a single mother.  If this was strictly a black/white, right/wrong issue based on the facts and policy, there would be no need to bring it up.  People know that there is sympathy out there for mothers working to take care of their kids.  That isn't a bad thing.  To pretend it doesn't exist is naive at best.

Wesley Down Under, perhaps it is you who should think twice before posting.

Well after reading this whole thread, I think "Wes" has pretty accurately sized you up.

And I trust that you and everybody else that has been as Critical or unsympathetic to this Woman and Incident and trying to make a Case for the Prosecution, are  as un-resentfull towards the MP or LEO who doesn't give you  break for not coming to a full stop or 5 mph over in a School Zone.

After all he/she is only doing their job and facts are facts and the law is the law.

ABTW, Society is more sympathetic towards Women, because they usally get the shorter end of the stick, like only 79% of what men get paid, Deadbeat and Abusive Husbands and the list goes on.

And before you pipe up, "Well so do Men" yeah! but nothing like in the number of Female cases are.

 

[MedTechStudent]

Bottom line is that she was given her job back, all ends well.  Not to mention, that if she HAD been in the wrong, she would NOT have been given her job back.  The media issue is irrelevant.  A newscast could say nasty things about Tim Hortons till the cows came home and it would not make a difference, people will still show up for their double doubles.  Tim Hortons is a multi million dollar franchise, and if anything, people would be more eager to go to THAT location.  "Hey Johnny Handsome, lets go check out that Tim Hortons with the hard *** manager who fired that woman." 

Managers over react, I know I worked at Timmys.

Plus, the whole "Price of eggs and flour" thing...yes Neil thats true, but trust me they do fine, 6 digits fine in my town.  If your going to fire someone over selfish principal, expect for someone to overturn it.

 

[neilinkorea]

Well after reading this whole thread, I think "Wes" has pretty accurately sized you up.

And I trust that you and everybody else that has been as Critical or unsympathetic to this Woman and Incident and trying to make a Case for the Prosecution, are  as un-resentfull towards the MP or LEO who doesn't give you  break for not coming to a full stop or 5 mph over in a School Zone.

After all he/she is only doing their job and facts are facts and the law is the law.

ABTW, Society is more sympathetic towards Women, because they usally get the shorter end of the stick, like only 79% of what men get paid, Deadbeat and Abusive Husbands and the list goes on.

And before you pipe up, "Well so do Men" yeah! but nothing like in the number of Female cases.
are as

Oh yes, I am a left  wing nut who is not sympathetic to the working poor.  That makes a lot of sense.  

I would be very angry about not getting a break from a LEO on a ticket like that but it doesn't make me right.  If the manager is to be believed, then sure it is sad, heartless and a crying shame for her kids but that doesn't make it wrong.  The reason we have laws and the rule of law is so that the emotions and sentiments of people don't come into play in these decisions.  If it was a male highschool droupout who had been in trouble with the law before giving a friend's kid a timbit, I suspect this whole discussion would have quite a different tone.  Even though the act was the same we would treat it differently.  That is why we are a country of rules.  So all people will be treated the same by the rules.  Sometimes that can be a bonus, sometimes not as in this womans case.  Many people on this board whine about politicians playing things out in the media instead of dealing with them head on.  Why does this lady get a pass?

 

[armyvern]

Just because employees were doing it doesn't mean it was store policy.  Maybe this lady was to be the example to set the rest of the employees in line.Hard to imagine they claimed she was fired for it if it was an approved policy.  The value of the timbit is irrelevant. 

Why was she the example then?? Perhaps because of those past tensions with the store manager?? Wouldn't they, to be "just" of course, fire all the offending staff? After all, a crime is a crime is a crime -- and if they're all doing it -- it equals big bucks vice a mere 16 cents. Hmmm ... something is wrong with your arguement on that front.

Hard to imagine that they'd fire one emplyee for it and not all the others who did the same thing as a common practise in that store. If common practise is not policy -- then you enforce that change with all -- not one. When you treat that "one" employee who does just as all other employees do, differently from the rest -- she ends up being hired back by the same owner in a different store. The lesson here is that the value of the timbit is 16 cents -- but the value of treating "ALL" your employees the same in the same circumstances ... is priceless ... lest it bring you bad press.

As for me making her a saint or a devil of the manager -- I've done neither. Just pointing out the fallacy of YOUR very own comments making HER the devil with the "formed criminal intent" who knowingly, willfully, and with forethought -- robbed her employer of 16 cents, even though the original article lays out the case to be vastly different from your inferrations as per my previous response to you.

You certainly don't seem to have a problem pronouncing her guilt and the manager's innocense:

So that worker stole 16 cents from the company.  The same as if she opened the cash register and handed it out in coins.

 

[MedTechStudent]

First of all, a high school drop out and this woman are NOT one in the same.  This woman as worked there for years, she is grown up, has kids, a mortgage, responsibilities.  You want to live in a place were everyone is treated equal despite their actions, history, and effort?  Well then move to Cuba.  We live in a country of laws, yes, but you have to take that with a grain of salt.  You have never walked during a red light?  You have never maybe not fully stopped at a stop sign?  Those are laws too that people break every day.  You can't get any importance justice in Canada if the justice system is out chasing tidbits.

 

[neilinkorea]

Why was she the example then?? Perhaps because of those past tensions with the store manager?? Wouldn't they, to be "just" of course, fire all the offending staff? After all, a crime is a crime is a crime -- and if they're all doing it -- it equals big bucks vice a mere 16 cents. Hmmm ... something is wrong with your arguement on that front.

Hard to imagine that they'd fire one emplyee for it and not all the others who did the same thing as a common practise in that store. If common practise is not policy -- then you enforce that change with all -- not one. When you treat that "one" employee who does just as all other employees do, differently from the rest -- she ends up being hired back by the same owner in a different store. The lesson here is that the value of the timbit is 16 cents -- but the value of treating "ALL" your employees the same in the same circumstances ... is priceless ... lest it bring you bad press.

As for me making her a saint or a devil of the manager -- I've done neither. Just pointing out the fallacy of your very own comments making HER the devil with the criminal intent who knowingly, willfully, and with forethought -- robbed her employer of 16 cents, even though the original article lays out the case to be vastly different from your inferrations.

Firing ALL the staff would cost them more.  Would effectively close the store until new staff could be hired and trained.  That isn't really an option.  You choose the worst offender or the one with enough warnings about other things to make the firing legal, and fire that person.  It was mentioned earlier that a person can't just be fired without verbal and or written warnings and so on.  Maybe she was just the unlucky one who was chosen to be fired.  

I even capitolized the word IF.  I said IF she had been warned before it could be construed as intent. I wont have a person who uses the word inferrations question the validity of my thought process.  I also added vice versa after the angel/devil comment to show she is not to be made a devil nor the manager an angel until all the facts are out.  Do you read these posts or just skim them and let fly?

 

[MedTechStudent]

I know it must be hard to keep up, with the large amount of people telling you your wrong : ... but like I already said, if she had actually been guilty, her job would not have been given back to her. 

Also, could not help but notice you dodging my questions about the times that YOU have broken little laws.  Of course, that would have looked pretty bad and hypocritical if you had answered, right?  ;D