Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think that a mum of two should not be jailed for

320 replies

Mitmoo · 13/08/2011 11:37

taking a pair of shorts that her friend stole in the riots.

She's got six months.

A young man who took £3.50 worth of water from a ransacked shop got six months.

I want justice, I want those who terrified my family even though we were fortunate enough to only view it through the television screen to be punished but I want some kind of proportionality.

Do we remove mum's from their children for six months because she took a pair of shorts from a friend who had been in the riots?

It was wrong of course, she should have shopped the "friend" but six months????

menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1455638_mum-jailed-for-six-months-for-wearing-pair-of-looted-shorts-

OP posts:
SoupDragon · 13/08/2011 17:45

Never driven even the slightest amount above the speed limit, coccyx?

CogitoErgoSometimes · 13/08/2011 17:50

Lots of people are going to be struggling. And it's not posh people who will struggle because the Salford branch of T J Huges is damaged... it's the ordinary people from places like Lower Broughton who really need the jobs to make ends meet. The decent people who, despite not having much themselves, would rather stick pins in their eyes than rob a shop or mug someone of their rucksack contents.

There is real anger in society as a result of last week's violence and it's not confined to the 'disaffected youth'. It's an anger that the vast majority are getting on with life best we can, putting up with hardships, cuts, price-rises, job-losses.... still trying to do the best for our families, bring our kids up right and lead decent lives. And some yobbos come along thinking they can walk all over people & trash their hard work for fun? Then plead that they're hard done by? I don't think that makes us 'right wing', I just don't think we're in the mood for a pity party.

Birdsgottafly · 13/08/2011 17:54

I don't see what difference it makes whether we have all commited a crime, that is why we have custodial and non custodial sentencing, depending on the effect and consequence of the crime etc.

If we lived by that theory we would be living in a country akin to Rwanda, it might sound smug on paper but i doubt many would like the reality.

Vinniesbisqwits · 13/08/2011 18:24

when you read some of the comments it hardly surprises me we had riots , looting muggings and even murder.
I dont drive so no I do not have ANY offences whatsoever to my name I work with children and would never risk even a tiny offence of even evading paying my tv licence why do people want to give these ' citizens' excuses
there are more reasons than we can count why there might be social unrest at the moment but we have still two path choices in life right and wrong , its not rocket science its morals some have them others appear not to.

shuffleballchange · 13/08/2011 19:41

Yes it is too harsh. She did not steal them. FFS a pair of shorts??! Really? 6 months? Maybe community service or a fine but 6 months in prison. Its wrong.

shuffleballchange · 13/08/2011 19:43

And you can bet that a lot of the real thugs who damaged property and stole to a far higher value will get away scot free and never be caught.

Birdsgottafly · 13/08/2011 19:48

If they are not caught, that cannot be helped but if they are, then they should be sentenced accordingly, as she was.

You can bet if they are not caught it is because someone is hiding their stolen goods, exactly the way that she was and will profit from it, or is sitting there taken 'care of' by being paid for their silence, as she was.

shuffleballchange · 13/08/2011 19:51

Ah Birds, see, I jumped right in without knowing the full story. If that is the case, then yes it is deserved.

Scaredycat3000 · 13/08/2011 20:15

Birdsgottafly My neighbours got raided by the police this afternoon. Wonder if they are still laughing?

Claw3 · 13/08/2011 20:16

She didnt get 6 months for 'taking a pair of shorts that her friend stole in the riots'. She got 6 months (although i read 5 months) for receiving stolen goods. She had about 700 pounds worth of goods in her house.

ImperialBlether · 13/08/2011 21:00

Thanks for clarifying that, Claw3.

Claw3 · 13/08/2011 21:03

Sorry did i state the obvious Blush

ChippingIn · 13/08/2011 21:19

There's always more to it isn't there.

I've read both sides of this debate - and agree with TheFirstMrsD. we need sensible sentencing otherwise it will escalate the problem.

As for 'shorts woman' can't say as there's only half a story - no idea of how much she had in the house (reports vary) or what her 'history' is.

TheSecondComing · 13/08/2011 21:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Claw3 · 13/08/2011 21:31

I think the point is she knew about the stolen goods being in her house, which is why she got 6 months.

The Court has to take into consideration when sentencing the aggravating and mitigating factors. In this case there were an awful lot of aggravating factors for example where the goods came from and how much violence was involved etc, etc, etc.

Maryz · 13/08/2011 21:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MadamDeathstare · 13/08/2011 21:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Claw3 · 13/08/2011 21:57

According to reports, she didnt have any previous and she was charged with receiving/handling stolen goods.

The maximum for handling stolen goods is 14 years, depending on the circumstances, value of the goods, seriousness of the original offence etc, etc.

The fact that the goods handled were the proceeds of looting, which caused millions of pounds worth of damage, caused choas, people were injuried and even killed etc, etc, 6 months isnt bad.

didyouseewhatshedid · 13/08/2011 21:58

The bigger point about The Riots, surely, is that there was a period - perhaps on Mon night or when things really kicked off with the fires etc - where I think many people were wondering where all of this was heading. Or am I the only one that thought this?
Anyway, for me, this is why the sentencing is - and needs to be - tough. We are a democracy, not some bloody backward nation where anarchy, looting etc is the every day norm. The govt needed to draw a line in the sand and it has. If people dont like that then, in all seriousness, they should think about living in a country which doesnt take these things so seriously.

niceguy2 · 13/08/2011 21:59

we need sensible sentencing otherwise it will escalate the problem.

I totally agree. And the last thing the government need to do right now is look soft. Looking soft will just invite more trouble in the future.

Right now the courts and police are sending out the strongest message they can. To do the best they can to dissuade looters from trying again and to anyone who is thinking of handling, selling or buying the stolen goods. If they clamp down on the buyers, it will make others think twice before buying a dodgy plasma TV from the bloke in the proverbial pub and hopefully damage the black market.

The woman knowingly broke the law and did so on the back of the looting/rioting which appalled the country. In that context I hope she enjoys her stretch at her majesty's pleasure.

FellatioNelson · 13/08/2011 22:08

Haven't read the thread yet, only the OP, but I feel very torn about this. part of me thinks yes, come down hard on everyone involved, but another part of me feels that some of these sentences are hugely disproportionate compared to other things people get little or no punishment for, especially things that are not riot related. The police seem to have gone to town on the easy targets, to assuage public anger.

I understand that they need to be made an example of, but I think we need to be careful that the sentences don't get too silly. From what I can see, many of the people that have been charged don't appear to anything more than stupid opportunists wanting to be part of an exciting day out, rather than cynical hardened lifestyle thieves and thugs. Whilst I don't wish to defend them at all, I do hope we are not so busy making examples of opportunistic 14 year olds stealing chewing gum that we are ignoring the serious villains.

maypole1 · 13/08/2011 22:18

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025639/London-riots-2011-Scotland-Yard-issue-huge-montage-new-riot-suspect-images.html

This women laughs as she steals and loots yet some still defend them?

I rather think if these people who are so keen so understanding and what not were burnt out of their homes they would have rather a different view

What about justice for the victims

The reason why were are in this mess

maypole1 · 13/08/2011 22:21

FellatioNelson easy targets the reason why many were rounded up so quickly is because they were already know to the police

Like I said you can afford to be torn your house was not burned and you are sleeping in your own bed tonight unlike these peoples victims

maypole1 · 13/08/2011 22:29

A mother-of-ten who nets more than £30,000-a-year in benefits has begged for charity donations to help raise her brood - because her state 'wage' is not enough.

Moira Pearce, 34, has insisted her weekly government handout of £600 is insufficient to feed and clothe her children and she needs donations to survive.

The single mum - whose kids are fathered by four ex-partners - has insisted her range of child and family allowance benefits do not meet her weekly outgoings.

THIS IS WHY WE AREIN THE. SITUATION WE NOW FIND OURSELVES IN this attatuide that the world owes me a living

Swipe left for the next trending thread