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

[Mitmoo]

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-

I see I was so slow the previous 3 posters are now totally different!!

Their mother going to prison for 6 months will only give the children the message that they should stay away from all crime. This isnt a bad thing. She got what she deservered.

Mitmoo - the sentencing structure in the UK is generally pretty fair and robust. If she has been given a stretch there will without doubt be other reasons at play.

Are you honestly saying that because she's a mother of two she should be treated less harshly than, say, a father of two, or a childless man or woman?

Where do you draw the line at this softer approach, OP?

People have lost their lives and their businesses in these riots, OP - I haven't one ounce of sympathy in my body for some fucking "mother" who felt she was hard done by and decided to handle stolen goods.

I doubt it is a first offense and agree it does seem severe, but the fact she is a mother is totally irrelevant and should have no bearing on her punishment. She committed a crime, she should be punished appropriately regardless of whether she has children or not. Like others have said - no one has commented on whether any of the male looters have children or not. It isn't relevant.

but disproportionate sentencing is a differnet arguement than what comes across in your OP - whether she should be jailed cos she's a woman. You'll always have "disproportionate" sentences - unless you've mandatory sentences with no discretion for judges. Unless you know all the facts of both cases - you can't really prove its disproportionate. It certainly seems so - tho I'd be thinking that the guy who gouged the eyes should be getting increase rather than the woman who benefited from looting getting decrease.

Well then the eye gouger should have got more. The answer is not to reduce other sentences to make that look more severe. The scum involved in the riots and the aftermath are getting nothing more than what they deserve.

belle - I thought that when I first read the GMpolice twitter thing. But on reflection the courts have to send out the message that taking any part in the rioting and looting is unacceptable. The fear of last week being repeated made me re think my initial reaction.
Of course it should not matter whether she had children, many of the males sentenced will not have details published of whether they are fathers or not. And if I could bring myself to sign up to Twitter I would be challenging their tweet on the subject.

Seems a bit harsh when earlier this month a lorry driver was fined and given points on his license for knocking over and killing a lollipop lady.

were you in court mitmoo? did you hear the full details or read the full court transcript? if not, you dont know the full details. Im glad they are coming down hard. More power to their elbows!

maybe if it was your properly she was caught in possession of, you wouldnt be so forgiving hmm.

6 months is disproportionate for merely receiving a single stolen item. and family issues are considered in passing sentence, so her two children should have been too.

A mum-of-two who slept through the riots will spend the next five months behind bars ? because she accepted a pair of looted shorts the morning after.

Ursula Nevin was in bed at home when city centre shops were ransacked by vandals.

Her housemate Gemma Corbett, 24, returned from the mass crime spree with £629 of clothing and accessories from the upmarket Vans store.

The next day, Nevin picked out a pair of shorts from the haul, tried them on and decided to keep them.

Hours later, police raided the women?s house in Stretford.

Nevin was arrested for handling stolen goods. Now she has been jailed for five months after pleading guilty at Manchester magistrates' court.

Well she didn't steal, she didn't hurt any one, she didn't damage any property .... guilty by default.... does seem a bit over zealous.  Whats the cost of keeping an inmate ? £2,000 per week? Personally I'd have dressed in a lurid orange boiler suit claeeaning up dog sh8t in the park every day for 3 months - public humilitaion would more than suffice.

Yep, YABU. She stole, she has to pay the price. I am sick to death of people responsible for these riots getting a break just because they have kids. Perhaps the punishment will send a message, loud and clear: DO NOT STEAL.

It is completely unacceptable whyme2 but I think it's incorrect to dish out the maximum sentence regardless. Someone who's handled £££ worth of stolen goods and sold them on eBay shouldn't necessarily get the same sentence as a homeless person who was hungry.

You're all right of course, she should have thought about her children. I wasn't aware that her flatmate had stolen a large amount.

Tsk, no one is saying she should have got a shorter sentence because she's a woman. They are saying that perhaps a custodial sentence is inappropriate for a mother because it also punishes the children.

It's not about being a Mum it's about disproportionality. If two weeks ago she had taken the shorts, she'd have been given a conditional discharge, bound over, community service or a fine.

She commits the same crime and but because it is from looted goods she get six months.

We all want justice but I want some kind of rationale behind it, not everyone getting the maximum regardless. I agree the deterrent message in this will stop future riots and for that I will be grateful. Coming down hard on the rioters and I'll be applauding, the arsonists, throw away the key, the murderers same goes.

I've just been reading up on how some prisons have been privatised back in March and wonder how they will cope with the prisons full to busting.

I also wonder how they are going to house them all, do we let out other offenders to make room for the shorts mum? Cameron says three to a cell but then do they get to sue as their human rights haven't been met.

This all appears very knee jerk to me without the consequences being thought out. Apparantly six months in prison costs £25k, then putting the children into care, lack of foster homes already and the country is supposed to be broke. I'm not convinced that taking a pair of shorts though undoubtedly wrong, is not six months worth of wrong.

It'll be mostly the idiots who grabbed stuff opportunistically or handled stolen goods afterwards who'll get jail time. They're easy pickings. The real scumbags, the ones who torched properties and smashed windows... they'll get away with it, they always do. Even if they're arrested, they'll either be too young to receive any sort of worthwhile sentence or they'll be deemed too "troubled" and will be sent to Alton Towers to reflect on what they've done.

There are far better punishments they could give to people like Nevin - indeed a spot of Boy George street-sweeping would do the trick. Or be made to go to the Vans store and work for nothing as a cleaner every day for six months. No point filling up jail with these fools - but plenty of productive ways they could be taught a lesson.

None of us know.......she may have previous, cautions or be on probation for other offences

The sentencing for handling is greater than for theft. Without the handlers, you would reduce the theft. It is a reasonable sentence bearing in mind if she went to crown the maximum could be 14 years.

It's harsh unless it was not a first offence but you have to remember the courts have been told to come down hard on anyone involved.

When people go looting, they don't hang around the shops carefully selecting things that fit them or that they personally want....they just grab armfuls of stuff and flee the shops. Obviously, the armfuls of stuff then get sold on to friends/family/people at the pub.

If the courts make people too scared to buy these goods, the looters will have no more reason to steal them.

Well she didn't steal, she didn't hurt any one, she didn't damage any property .... guilty by default.... does seem a bit over zealous. Whats the cost of keeping an inmate ? £2,000 per week? Personally I'd have dressed in a lurid orange boiler suit claeeaning up dog sh8t in the park every day for 3 months - public humilitaion would more than suffice.

Now that kind of a sentence I would have applauded in her case. Not for the looter they deserve jail but for handling one pair of shorts your kind of punishment makes far more sense.

Exactly Mrs Milton That is exactly what I think too.

YANBU anyone who thinks you are has gone insane

When you choose to have children then you choose the extra responsibility to stay out of prison that the childless don't have. Its like saying its unfair that some of the looters have been sacked from their jobs because they have been punished more harshly than unemployed looters or looters who can no longer pay their mortgages (due to losing said jobs) or have been evicted from LA properties have been treated unfairly compared to people who don't have a mortgage or a good behavior clause in their tenancy agreement. The more you have, the more you have to lose and it would have been blatantly obvious to the woman that she had children before she chose to commit the crime.

We dont know this womans circumstances, or how accurate the newspaper reporting has been.
It is my understanding that the fact that a crime has taken place in the context of rioting is being seen by the judiciary as being an aggravating factor, which is increasing the sentences given.