So, just to make sure I've got this right. Dying woman gets pissed that the shop is spending a ton of money on shop windows i.e. ADVERTISING rather than spending money on staff and/or bonuses, so she makes sure that the shop has even *less* money to pay staff by ripping it off to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand bucks? (and Mac's calculations were off, unless she was working 7 days a week).
you could, of course, argue that happy staff = better customer service which brings in more trade thru word of mouth than advertising anyway...
Ugh, while the storyline itself was interesting enough, the whole "OMG, she's being all Robin Hood, isn't that wonderful and big businesses are evil and deserve to be ripped off" message just left a bad taste in my mouth
i dunno, i was quite pleased to see a hollywood show espousing an almost socialist point of view! but then, property is theft, so i would say that.
once the robbery division *do* get around to looking into it and realize who got all the dosh, you think they're going to be allowed keep it?
The money would probably be long since spent by the time they got around to it. Since the woman would likely be dead by the time they got around to it. It'd be much cheaper for them to drop the case than to shell out even more money by taking it to court to get the money back from the employees.
that was the one thing that really bothered me this ep (apart from the f**king xmas bollocks) - why those employees? if you're gonna pull a robin hood (ewww, that means getting off with either kevin costner or russell crowe! ick! i retract that statement!!!) how do you decide who gets the benefit? sure she knew those employees risked financial trouble but this is a department store not a corner shop, what about the other employees getting laid off in other departments? why not them too? i don't think 'maybe she didn't know them" qualifies either because if she was a genuine altruist (which, by the way, don't exist) she'd have researched it so she could spread the money more fairly. but she didn't so she's just as bad as the big businesses.
I wasn't saying that she had it coming to her since she stole the money. He should've fired her, but he was a horny man, he wasn't going to get rid of her. It is gross that she went along with his perverse stuff.
So, let me see if I have this right:
1. Grossman was a horny lech who wouldn't have fired her because he fully intended to sexually exploit her regardless of her answer to his proposal. In other words, you acknowledge that he fully intended to rape her.
2. But it's gross because she opted for the less physically violent rape in order to lessen the pain and trauma of the ordeal.
3. Conclusion: She is gross and undeserving of sympathy because she "allowed" herself to be a victim, even though there was no way to avoid victimization at that point. Only badly-beaten, helpless rape victims deserve sympathy.
Yeah. Wow.
this i fully 100% agree with. it's on the same level as saying someone in a short skirt was asking for it. which, as any sane person knows, is utter bullcrap. NO ONE asks to be raped, ever, end of story. what needs to happen is people stop saying it's the rape victim's fault and start realising that men need to stop thinking they have the power to just take what they want, and to start keeping it in their pants (not that rape is ever really about sex, but i guess that thing is a handy little weapon:scream
I question it because I find it repugnant. But thank you for admitting you're a misanthrope and possible sociopath.
this, however, i think is taking it a little far. i have to admit i'm definitely a misanthrope, i think humans generally are pretty scummy. that said i'm not a sociopath as i'm too emotionally involved (hell, i'd love not to be but i can't help it with borderline personality/bipolar:lol:
) and given that abuse (be it systematic or one off, or by a human or by a corporation or even a government) is what makes me hate people so much, i can't help but see the woman's side in all this, regardless of what else she did wrong - because there are proper procedures to deal with light fingers that don't involve rape and coercion.
suffice it to say i think calling someone a sociopath based on 2 threads on a tv show forum is a little exaggerated.
as for the ep itself, i wasn't really blown away. i quite liked that they had the least subtle thief since oliver! i liked mac's grudging behaviour over shopping (i am the same). i thought he and jo were cute too - were they holding hands as they crossed the street?! it kinda looked that way for a second but a car got in the way...
as for the case, well, as i've said i think the boss reaped what he sowed, there are better ways to deal with thieving. quite interesting that they essentially had 2 petty thieves though with 2 very different outcomes.
i found her selective donations at the end a bit annoying. but not as annoying as all the f**king xmas bollocks. why must i be subjected to this bullshit everywhere i look?! dear xmas: bugger off!!!!
so yeah, i gave it a B- - worst of the season so far i think, i quite liked some aspects of the case, and i liked the intro, but otherwise? meh.
