Convicted fraudster resumes accountancy business (From The Northern Echo)

All this is about is selling newspapers, a judge has passed scentence and this lady has paid her debt to society. Would you prefer her to claim benefits or instead hopefully try and learn from her mistakes and make a living. If she breaks the law again then she will be prosecuted again. Whilst what she has done is wrong, judgement has been passed and her punishment has been served. Do some real journalism!

I would say that the Northern Echo is doing a public service by alerting current and future clients of this upstanding pillar of the financial fraternity to her past criminal activities.It seems to me that a lack of remorse for what she did is portrayed by her response to being questioned.People have a right to know who they are placing their trust in.I know what my reaction would be.Thanks,but no thanks.

Well I think that this woman has paid for her crime, and to be honest at least she is trying to earn a living. If she had changed her identity perhaps you would be right in thinking the public need to be warned. My advice to Ms Iley is try trading somewhere where you are not known!

She obviously has no shame. Who in their right mind would want her as their accountamt trusting her with their money????

If a Doctor deliberately prescribes the wrong dose of medicine to a patient who ends up either severely ill or even dead, would that Doctor be allowed to practise medicine following disciplinary action? So why should a person who has committed fraud be allowed to resume a career in handling peoples finances after her punishment?

Cheap shot. She has no defence to this story, yes she made mistakes and did wrong but she went to court and paid the price. What is the point of dragging this up again but for cheap copy in the newspaper. I believe most if not all the money has been paid back so why try to blacken her name.

The article from the NEcho states that at companies house her business makes no reference to her work in accounting or book keeping, could this be that is because she is a fraudster and not allowed to trade as such? Either way I wouldn`t give her my business although I do know someone who uses her services I will be sending them this article as I never knew about her past either I will make sure my friends cease to be her customer, leopards do not change their spots and to steal from a charity is disgraceful.

Townlad wrote:
The article from the NEcho states that at companies house her business makes no reference to her work in accounting or book keeping, could this be that is because she is a fraudster and not allowed to trade as such? Either way I wouldn`t give her my business although I do know someone who uses her services I will be sending them this article as I never knew about her past either I will make sure my friends cease to be her customer, leopards do not change their spots and to steal from a charity is disgraceful.

What about forgiveness. Has she not paid already. She is now legally working hard trying to make a living in the trade that she trained in is this a crime.

I think potential clients have a right to know her past record.

Equally she needs to get on with her life.

It might have been advisable to think about a career change while inside

she does not deserve to run a business the theiving low life and as for all the comments above that give support to her......shame on you!!!

battboy77 wrote:
she does not deserve to run a business the theiving low life and as for all the comments above that give support to her......shame on you!!!

Its not support to her, but hopefully a little faith that the system works occasionally, hopefully she maybe an example. If people are pre-judged by past mistakes then they have little chance of leaving that behind them. I do think it is an article in the bank for the Northen Echo to bring out when theres no news, and pretty pointless. Just my opinion and everyone has a rght to there own.

Shame on you and the northern echo again!!!!!!!!
Why can you not leave the past in the past. HAVE YOU NOTHING BETTER TO DO........ Shoud be reporting on NEW news not chasing histroy and gossip. How you won north east reporter of the year is beond me. No real heart to this story. No reporting needed just a garden wall and a hairnet!!!!!!!! Back street gossip and 'have you heard what soan so is doing!!!!!!! Who here is really getting money for doing no work!!!!!!!!!!!!!,,,
,,,NOW there's a story.

What exactly is her new business. Then we can make a judgement.??????
Does it involve other people money?

aycliffemum4 wrote:
Shame on you and the northern echo again!!!!!!!! Why can you not leave the past in the past. HAVE YOU NOTHING BETTER TO DO........ Shoud be reporting on NEW news not chasing histroy and gossip. How you won north east reporter of the year is beond me. No real heart to this story. No reporting needed just a garden wall and a hairnet!!!!!!!! Back street gossip and 'have you heard what soan so is doing!!!!!!! Who here is really getting money for doing no work!!!!!!!!!!!!!,,, ,,,NOW there's a story.

beond & soan so??? are these actual words??? oh yeah if your an aycliffe mum this makes sense.........

Batt boy 77 ....... Sorry if this offends you but I'm using small phone and I still manage to make a valid point.
You are just being a pratt!
Grow up!this is about poor reporting skills and lack of journalism...... Not my typing skills.

This is good journalism, its lets us know about all the low lifes out there and who to avoid..........and also make us chuckle at people like you who support these theiving scumbags.

Battboy77 if you spent more time doing your job at northern echo and less time playing on line,having a go at anyone that disagrees with it you might come across with some intelligence. Till then my comment about lazy reporters and poor stories are still valid.just low shots and back street gossip.
My comments about you being a pratt are just confirmed by you comments.

So now im a reporter for the Northern Echo?
Yes i do work on a computor......you need to work on getting a job!!!

battboy77 wrote:
This is good journalism, its lets us know about all the low lifes out there and who to avoid..........and also make us chuckle at people like you who support these theiving scumbags.

Bravo! At last, someone who talks sense. (although taking the P out of someone’s grammar etc. is a tad uncalled for)

I totally agree that this sort of info should be reported upon, so the law abiding among us can make informed decisions. This country panders to the perpetrator and ignores the victims (potential or not!)

There maybe those out there who would still use her financial services. Obviously after she's seen the light and turned over a new leaf. But i certainly won’t put it to the test!

Doesn’t the nature of her registered business ring any alarm bells? There maybe a perfectly plausible reason, but alarm bells ring loud and clear to me, so I’ll be giving her a wide birth. Not that i have any money to warrant an accountant!

I thought you had to be squeaky clean to work in accountancy?

I see your point Woodenhead but we have to look at the facts, she is a convicted fraudster yet allowed to trade in accountancy / book keeping, I am all for someone furthering themselves and being punished for doing wrong but she shouldn`t be allowed to work with other peoples money, if she was a child molester she could not work with children or if she was a violent criminal she could not work in security to give but 2 examples, so why then can a fraudster work with other peoples money, that`s my point.

Read the article people....... She is not doing anything wrong, the courts are happy for her to continue her present business. All this article tells you is the past. As far as the law is concerned she has paid for her past and is free to continue her life.the morthern echo have to print that because without that info this is nothing more than mud slinging hoping to stop her future. Not really news more like gossip about someones past. If the law is happy for her to continue what makes the northern echo feel they know better. A news paper should print news.....not personal opinions.

battboy77 wrote:
she does not deserve to run a business the theiving low life and as for all the comments above that give support to her......shame on you!!!

I could not agree more. She is what would be described in the building trade as a cowboy . I know she is alleged to have paid her debt to society but I would never trust her with money and think she should never be put in a position of trust again. Full marks to The Echo for alerting future clients.

This is not about poor reporting, this is about honesty. Honestly, would you want this lady doing your company books, and submitting funds(yours) to the government? In my book waht is born square does not die round, think about it for a moment, and watch where you put your money, many Accountants/Financia
l Advisors are as crooked as the day is long. You do not go to jail if you are a law abiding citizen.

fratia wrote:
This is not about poor reporting, this is about honesty. Honestly, would you want this lady doing your company books, and submitting funds(yours) to the government? In my book waht is born square does not die round, think about it for a moment, and watch where you put your money, many Accountants/Financia l Advisors are as crooked as the day is long. You do not go to jail if you are a law abiding citizen.

I could say more but totally agree with the above. I think that The Echo has done everyone in the area a great service. One thing is correct. On her website it says that Karen is not your typical accountant. You could say that again with knobs on

Great liars and fraudsters are very accomplished at putting others at ease.... its part of their game plan while they steal your cash with a smile on their face. I would NEVER TRUST HER.

Slow news day what's the fuss about

snudge wrote:
Slow news day what's the fuss about

I don't see how anyone can say the story is not in the public interest.

You can have an opinion on whether she should be working as an accountant and this story lets you judge for yourself whether you want to be a client

snudge wrote:
Slow news day what's the fuss about

She stole nearly the entire funds from a worthy charity from a position of trust and whilst working as a professional. Moreover she seems now to dispute the verdict of her peers acting as a jury and now intends to resume her business dealings which largely involves advising clients on money matters and perhaps being trusted with other peoples money. I think The Echo had every right to warn the public. I'm not advocating that she should never work again but I repeat I would not trust her in money matters. There are other careers open to her, perhaps working for a charity as a token of rehabilitation.

victorjames wrote:

snudge wrote:
Slow news day what's the fuss about

She stole nearly the entire funds from a worthy charity from a position of trust and whilst working as a professional. Moreover she seems now to dispute the verdict of her peers acting as a jury and now intends to resume her business dealings which largely involves advising clients on money matters and perhaps being trusted with other peoples money. I think The Echo had every right to warn the public. I'm not advocating that she should never work again but I repeat I would not trust her in money matters. There are other careers open to her, perhaps working for a charity as a token of rehabilitation.

Any person who has carried out there punishment has every right in most circumstances to live a normal life and has every right to question the decision of peers as the extent of the punishment would taken into account remorse or lack of it within pre-scentencing reports. So having served punishment she has everyright to do as he or she pleases unless tshe were to break the law again. In this circumstance she hasn't, there is no news here.

Just pre-judgemental journalists and people..... here's a question.... if someone has been banned for drink driving or for repeated speeding would you think the same or less of them, than someone who had knocked someone over and killed them whilst dunk or speeding, in practicality there is very little differnce, just luck or unluckiness of circumstances one might say, bearing that in mind would you treat both the same after they have served a ban/scentence? Scocieties perception is a strange thing, once you have done wrong and learnt from mistakes, maybe these reformed people best in place to comment or criticise.

I imagine most people commenting are model citizens, but almost no-body is squekey clean, as proven by the MP expenses.

Be careful who you judge so easily, it's so easy to end up on the wrong side of the law... intentionally or not. After all weren't most MP's following the crowd... one might say there peers? Public perception can change in a second... look at Saville yet Young Girl was a hit in the 70's describing something which is disgusting in our modern society. I am not saying anyones behaviour is acceptable... especially waht has come to forth about Saville but Societies views changes and what was acceptable or so unacceptable it wasn;t talked about then is unacceptable and always reported now.

I talked alot there, hope none of it is taken the wrong way, just trying to be objective to an extent.

hottopic wrote:

victorjames wrote:

snudge wrote: Slow news day what's the fuss about

She stole nearly the entire funds from a worthy charity from a position of trust and whilst working as a professional. Moreover she seems now to dispute the verdict of her peers acting as a jury and now intends to resume her business dealings which largely involves advising clients on money matters and perhaps being trusted with other peoples money. I think The Echo had every right to warn the public. I'm not advocating that she should never work again but I repeat I would not trust her in money matters. There are other careers open to her, perhaps working for a charity as a token of rehabilitation.

Any person who has carried out there punishment has every right in most circumstances to live a normal life and has every right to question the decision of peers as the extent of the punishment would taken into account remorse or lack of it within pre-scentencing reports. So having served punishment she has everyright to do as he or she pleases unless tshe were to break the law again. In this circumstance she hasn't, there is no news here. Just pre-judgemental journalists and people..... here's a question.... if someone has been banned for drink driving or for repeated speeding would you think the same or less of them, than someone who had knocked someone over and killed them whilst dunk or speeding, in practicality there is very little differnce, just luck or unluckiness of circumstances one might say, bearing that in mind would you treat both the same after they have served a ban/scentence? Scocieties perception is a strange thing, once you have done wrong and learnt from mistakes, maybe these reformed people best in place to comment or criticise. I imagine most people commenting are model citizens, but almost no-body is squekey clean, as proven by the MP expenses. Be careful who you judge so easily, it's so easy to end up on the wrong side of the law... intentionally or not. After all weren't most MP's following the crowd... one might say there peers? Public perception can change in a second... look at Saville yet Young Girl was a hit in the 70's describing something which is disgusting in our modern society. I am not saying anyones behaviour is acceptable... especially waht has come to forth about Saville but Societies views changes and what was acceptable or so unacceptable it wasn;t talked about then is unacceptable and always reported now. I talked alot there, hope none of it is taken the wrong way, just trying to be objective to an extent.

I perhaps have the advantage over you as I have information not covered in the newspaper article. I stand by what I said she is, of course, free to carry on her career in any way she chooses providing that she does not break the law, but despite this I would suggest she should not again be placed in a position of trust involving money. I also repeat that this story is in the public interest and The Northern Echo were quite right to report it.

So what about this lady, she's paid her debt to society. What do people want? Do they want het to be locked in up in the Tower of London or hung, drawn & quartered?
If people don't like her or trust her, then use a different accountant. It's not rocket science. Anyway, there's plenty of untrustworthy people in the govt & other positions of power in this country, & they get away with it.

Duke of Aycliffe wrote:
So what about this lady, she's paid her debt to society. What do people want? Do they want het to be locked in up in the Tower of London or hung, drawn & quartered? If people don't like her or trust her, then use a different accountant. It's not rocket science. Anyway, there's plenty of untrustworthy people in the govt & other positions of power in this country, & they get away with it.

You are, of course, correct but some time back in this debate someone questioned whether this was really a story at all and criticised The Echo for printing it. My point is that considering the nature of her work they were quite right to report it and furthermore I agree with the prominence that they gave to the report. People can then decide whether to go to her or not. Personally I wouldn't.

This is, in my view a cheap shot. At the time of her conviction she was exposed in the media etc...justice was served and she has carried out her part of that process....time in a cell, and all of the public shame attached. The Echo clearly states that by re-engaging with her previous line of work, she has not and is not doing anything wrong.....so, why bring it all back ? Cheap Shot. Case closed.

She should be able to get on with her life after "serving her time", but also people need to know about her past.

Just as you might not want a former sex offender looking after your children...

boxtie wrote:
This is, in my view a cheap shot. At the time of her conviction she was exposed in the media etc...justice was served and she has carried out her part of that process....time in a cell, and all of the public shame attached. The Echo clearly states that by re-engaging with her previous line of work, she has not and is not doing anything wrong.....so, why bring it all back ? Cheap Shot. Case closed.

Hear Hear!

Let her do peoples books, just don't give her access to your funds, simple.

Porca miseria wrote:
Let her do peoples books, just don't give her access to your funds, simple.

Totally agree. There is no reason why she should need to be touching any clients money, only reporting, which is what most accountants work is.
This type of reporting by The Northern Echo is poor and cheap

aycliffemum4 wrote:
Shame on you and the northern echo again!!!!!!!!
Why can you not leave the past in the past. HAVE YOU NOTHING BETTER TO DO........ Shoud be reporting on NEW news not chasing histroy and gossip. How you won north east reporter of the year is beond me. No real heart to this story. No reporting needed just a garden wall and a hairnet!!!!!!!! Back street gossip and 'have you heard what soan so is doing!!!!!!! Who here is really getting money for doing no work!!!!!!!!!!!!!,,,

,,,NOW there's a story.

She has paid for her past mistakes . Now she should be able to rebuild her life. Isn't that how our judicial system works?
Maybe I could apply for your job . At least I know the meaning of news!!

individuals have a choice to use her or not, no one is being forced to use her services, if you feel she deserves a second chance, then great, use her, if not, go elsewhere
what would concern me though is, would her work be accepted by the tax office ?

Looking at her I don't think I'd be interested in using her for single entry, never mind double entry.

when you break the law and are found guilty you forfeit the right to the public not being warned of your past behaviour. it becomes a matter of public interest. If this lady didn't want the attention she could have chosen not to commit any crimes. what would you say about a drink driver whos paid their fine, served their ban but moaned about the increased insurance cost because of the DD on their driving licence? do you not think people need to know of their past behaviour?

Woodenhead wrote:

boxtie wrote:
This is, in my view a cheap shot. At the time of her conviction she was exposed in the media etc...justice was served and she has carried out her part of that process....time in a cell, and all of the public shame attached. The Echo clearly states that by re-engaging with her previous line of work, she has not and is not doing anything wrong.....so, why bring it all back ? Cheap Shot. Case closed.

Hear Hear!

So, in your world, when Baby P's mother is released she should be allowed to be a nanny to someone's children, should she want to? Or if Ian Huntley were to be released, he should be allowed to be a school caretaker again? Or Kenneth Noye should be allowed to be a traffic cop if he so wished?
As far as I can recall no one had a gun to this lady's head when she raped the charities funds and thus she should suffer continual exposure for her crime... Well done Northern Echo

tomtopper wrote:

Woodenhead wrote:

boxtie wrote:
This is, in my view a cheap shot. At the time of her conviction she was exposed in the media etc...justice was served and she has carried out her part of that process....time in a cell, and all of the public shame attached. The Echo clearly states that by re-engaging with her previous line of work, she has not and is not doing anything wrong.....so, why bring it all back ? Cheap Shot. Case closed.

Hear Hear!

So, in your world, when Baby P's mother is released she should be allowed to be a nanny to someone's children, should she want to? Or if Ian Huntley were to be released, he should be allowed to be a school caretaker again? Or Kenneth Noye should be allowed to be a traffic cop if he so wished?
As far as I can recall no one had a gun to this lady's head when she raped the charities funds and thus she should suffer continual exposure for her crime... Well done Northern Echo

The judges in all these cases made sure this won't happen for obvious reasons. For example sex offenders register. None of this is relevant in this case. Keep it real, keep it relevant. I would hate to make a mistake, pay the price, reform myself, get back on track and have this happen. Also, think of any partners, directors or employees in the company that may lose business or there jobs because of this pointless attack and the uneccesary negative PR it will have. There are no winners from the publication of this article except the Northern Echo in some people eyes... not in mine. If she did end up being unemployed and claiming benefits as a result of this, don't worry the Northern Echo will let you know!

kirblebarblebumblebe
e wrote:

Porca miseria wrote: Let her do peoples books, just don't give her access to your funds, simple.

Totally agree. There is no reason why she should need to be touching any clients money, only reporting, which is what most accountants work is. This type of reporting by The Northern Echo is poor and cheap

This type of reporting is just what people need, Its in the public interest to know these facts. I've worked in Tax and accounting and if you give someone your accounting records then you are jointly responsible with your accountant if tax returns are not made or VAT returns completed incorrectly. It would not matter one bit if she was setting up as a hairdresser or shopkeeper. Really I've got rather fed up of stating the obvious, its little wonder that so many people get scammed on the internet or by identity theft. I repeat I think The Echo did a service, people can then choose whether they use or not. I suspect the charity that she cleaned out will not be recommending her to anyone.

boxtie wrote:
This is, in my view a cheap shot. At the time of her conviction she was exposed in the media etc...justice was served and she has carried out her part of that process....time in a cell, and all of the public shame attached. The Echo clearly states that by re-engaging with her previous line of work, she has not and is not doing anything wrong.....so, why bring it all back ? Cheap Shot. Case closed.

If I was looking for an accountant I'd want to know about it.

Is there anyone who can honestly say they would not want to know?

Homshaw1 wrote:

boxtie wrote:
This is, in my view a cheap shot. At the time of her conviction she was exposed in the media etc...justice was served and she has carried out her part of that process....time in a cell, and all of the public shame attached. The Echo clearly states that by re-engaging with her previous line of work, she has not and is not doing anything wrong.....so, why bring it all back ? Cheap Shot. Case closed.

If I was looking for an accountant I'd want to know about it.

Is there anyone who can honestly say they would not want to know?

I'd like to know too. Judging by the comments it sounds as though a lot of commentators know this lady. I haven't got much in savings but I'd like to know they were safe.

hottopic wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

Woodenhead wrote:

boxtie wrote:
This is, in my view a cheap shot. At the time of her conviction she was exposed in the media etc...justice was served and she has carried out her part of that process....time in a cell, and all of the public shame attached. The Echo clearly states that by re-engaging with her previous line of work, she has not and is not doing anything wrong.....so, why bring it all back ? Cheap Shot. Case closed.

Hear Hear!

So, in your world, when Baby P's mother is released she should be allowed to be a nanny to someone's children, should she want to? Or if Ian Huntley were to be released, he should be allowed to be a school caretaker again? Or Kenneth Noye should be allowed to be a traffic cop if he so wished?
As far as I can recall no one had a gun to this lady's head when she raped the charities funds and thus she should suffer continual exposure for her crime... Well done Northern Echo

The judges in all these cases made sure this won't happen for obvious reasons. For example sex offenders register. None of this is relevant in this case. Keep it real, keep it relevant. I would hate to make a mistake, pay the price, reform myself, get back on track and have this happen. Also, think of any partners, directors or employees in the company that may lose business or there jobs because of this pointless attack and the uneccesary negative PR it will have. There are no winners from the publication of this article except the Northern Echo in some people eyes... not in mine. If she did end up being unemployed and claiming benefits as a result of this, don't worry the Northern Echo will let you know!

You'd hate to make a 'mistake'..?? Is this what you think the lady in question did? Make a mistake??

The point I was making was to do with the whole ethos of those who commit prisonable crimes.. To put oneself in the same arena surrounded by the same type of people directly upon release and expect one's history to be hidden is almost an act of deception.. After all, no-one is lying here.. Only the truth is being told... Why withhold the truth?
It is also an insult to those accountants who have committed no crime and been faultless in their work to have this woman judged as ethically and morally equal as they are.. To withhold the history of anyone or anything is a deception, simple as that.. And that's as real and as relevant as you could get..

tomtopper wrote:

Woodenhead wrote:

boxtie wrote: This is, in my view a cheap shot. At the time of her conviction she was exposed in the media etc...justice was served and she has carried out her part of that process....time in a cell, and all of the public shame attached. The Echo clearly states that by re-engaging with her previous line of work, she has not and is not doing anything wrong.....so, why bring it all back ? Cheap Shot. Case closed.

Hear Hear!

So, in your world, when Baby P's mother is released she should be allowed to be a nanny to someone's children, should she want to? Or if Ian Huntley were to be released, he should be allowed to be a school caretaker again? Or Kenneth Noye should be allowed to be a traffic cop if he so wished? As far as I can recall no one had a gun to this lady's head when she raped the charities funds and thus she should suffer continual exposure for her crime... Well done Northern Echo

Buffoon, how can you make a comparison between Shoesmith, Noye, and Huntley etc with someone who has stolen some cash, what sense is there in your post......

This woman should not be working at all! Greedy people like her ought to be made to claim benefits for about 5 years before they can resume job seeking again. Perhaps then they will appreciate how fortunate they were to have a job and how foolish and greedy they were to steal from other people.

Homshaw1 says...

boxtie wrote:
This is, in my view a cheap shot. At the time of her conviction she was exposed in the media etc...justice was served and she has carried out her part of that process....time in a cell, and all of the public shame attached. The Echo clearly states that by re-engaging with her previous line of work, she has not and is not doing anything wrong.....so, why bring it all back ? Cheap Shot. Case closed.
If I was looking for an accountant I'd want to know about it.

Is there anyone who can honestly say they would not want to know?

Well of course you would like to know, I assume that within your application process you ASK the relevant question?

I get it now......forget forgiveness.....rede
mption, etc....forget how her relatives feel about this being dragged up again...........i get it now......prevent her from working at all, stop her from securing any benefits....perhaps the lady will become ill.....or worse.....is that what you imbeciles want?

boxtie wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

Woodenhead wrote:

boxtie wrote: This is, in my view a cheap shot. At the time of her conviction she was exposed in the media etc...justice was served and she has carried out her part of that process....time in a cell, and all of the public shame attached. The Echo clearly states that by re-engaging with her previous line of work, she has not and is not doing anything wrong.....so, why bring it all back ? Cheap Shot. Case closed.

Hear Hear!

So, in your world, when Baby P's mother is released she should be allowed to be a nanny to someone's children, should she want to? Or if Ian Huntley were to be released, he should be allowed to be a school caretaker again? Or Kenneth Noye should be allowed to be a traffic cop if he so wished? As far as I can recall no one had a gun to this lady's head when she raped the charities funds and thus she should suffer continual exposure for her crime... Well done Northern Echo

Buffoon, how can you make a comparison between Shoesmith, Noye, and Huntley etc with someone who has stolen some cash, what sense is there in your post......

It's the principle I was on about if you cared to read my later post.. But buffoons like yourself obviously aren't clever enough to grasp the point I was making

boxtie wrote:
I get it now......forget forgiveness.....rede

mption, etc....forget how her relatives feel about this being dragged up again...........i get it now......prevent her from working at all, stop her from securing any benefits....perhaps the lady will become ill.....or worse.....is that what you imbeciles want?

It's a question of fact and the telling of truth, not forgiveness..

Do you want people to lie and say she has never been in prison? If she followed another career path upon release their would be less inclination to do so..

She's brought it all on herself... And deserves every bit of ridicule for the misery she has caused..

If she was truly remorseful she would be working in another job and paying the charity back, whilst accepting the rightful scorn poured upon her..

Moral of the story? This is what happens when you rob people.. a stigma is rightly attached.. dont do it..

She's brought it all on herself

Gobstopper, you and I are clearly different....we beg to differ and respect each others right to an opinion. Bye.

If a paedophile was let out of prison would he be allowed to work with kids????? Doesn't matter if you've served the time leopards don't change spots!

It doesn't say in the article but has she paid back all the money to the charity and organisations?
Time after time I read about similar cases where they've served their sentence and had a fine a fraction of the amount involved, and afterwards they come out of it all still having gained financially, crime isn't suppose to pay!

what Miguel explained I'm amazed that any one able to get paid $6947 in one month on the internet. did you read this webpage FAB33.COM

We had Karen as our Accountant and unfortunately I have to agree with a lot of the comments posted bearing in mind how we were dealt with by her. I certainly would not recommend anyone appointing her.