Any sympathy for this woman?

[Robot Chicken]

This country suffers from prison over crowding. Locking up one random girl who was caught in the riots for 10 months is crazy. So what happens if EVERY person who was caught stealing in the riots is given such stupid prison sentences?

"According to the Ministry of Justice, the prison population had not grown as fast as previously projected, with a prison population in January 2011 of 82,991 and a useable operational capacity of 87,936. There was, therefore, scope to reduce overall capacity whilst maintaining sufficient prison places. The main controversy surrounding the issue of prison overcrowding is its negative impact on inmates. There are fewer opportunities for rehabilitative work in overcrowded prisons due to a lack of supervision and inmates are confined to their cells for longer, causing greater tensions between prisoners and with prison staff."

Sentencing this girl to 10 months helps no one. What is needed is a short, sharp shock, which is what she was given. I doubt she'll steal anything again. 10 months is out of proportion.

 

[The Auctioneer]

This country suffers from prison over crowding. Locking up one random girl who was caught in the riots for 10 months is crazy. So what happens if EVERY person who was caught stealing in the riots is given such stupid prison sentences?

"According to the Ministry of Justice, the prison population had not grown as fast as previously projected, with a prison population in January 2011 of 82,991 and a useable operational capacity of 87,936. There was, therefore, scope to reduce overall capacity whilst maintaining sufficient prison places. The main controversy surrounding the issue of prison overcrowding is its negative impact on inmates. There are fewer opportunities for rehabilitative work in overcrowded prisons due to a lack of supervision and inmates are confined to their cells for longer, causing greater tensions between prisoners and with prison staff."

Sentencing this girl to 10 months helps no one. What is needed is a short, sharp shock, which is what she was given. I doubt she'll steal anything again. 10 months is out of proportion.

Lets get the stocks out. A day outside the said shop in question with lots of rotten fruit to throw. Great stuff.

By the way, I heard that she was trying to take the shoes back for a refund.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Right, the main point here is that under the law, what she was convicted of, unless I'm very much mistaken, is burglary, not theft (shoplifting). I can't be arsed to explain the legal definition, but take it from me, under the law, what she did was burglary. Which partly explains the longer term.

Regardless of her sentence, she and she alone is responsible for any buggering up of her future career prospects, and that would be the case whatever time she served. She has a conviction for burglary, which the law seems a serious offence, and that's entirely her own fault.

And secondly, let's get this straight: the sentences dished out for those involved in the riots are based on the aggravating factors, not just that somebody nicked something or broke something. These are NOT opportunistic thefts, as the people involved didn't just HAPPEN to be passing & had a moment of madness. They made a conscious decision to go outside, go into town centres and take advantage of what was happening. They went out LOOKING to get involved in the trouble, and the fact that they might have then made a split second decision to see what they could grab is less relevant. The court is obliged to consider the riots as an aggravating factor when sentencing.

I have no sympathy at all with her. Did anybody on here decide to go out on the nights of the riots & steal something? No. Because you have brains and morals...in the main. This greedy individual didn't, and that is why she was supposedly going to be locked up.

Frankly, how dare she whine about it. If fewer morons like that had decided to go out & take whatever they could get, there wouldn't have even been riots all over the place.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Right, the main point here is that under the law, what she was convicted of, unless I'm very much mistaken, is burglary, not theft (shoplifting). I can't be arsed to explain the legal definition, but take it from me, under the law, what she did was burglary. Which partly explains the longer term.

Regardless of her sentence, she and she alone is responsible for any buggering up of her future career prospects, and that would be the case whatever time she served. She has a conviction for burglary, which the law seems a serious offence, and that's entirely her own fault.

And secondly, let's get this straight: the sentences dished out for those involved in the riots are based on the aggravating factors, not just that somebody nicked something or broke something. These are NOT opportunistic thefts, as the people involved didn't just HAPPEN to be passing & had a moment of madness. They made a conscious decision to go outside, go into town centres and take advantage of what was happening. They went out LOOKING to get involved in the trouble, and the fact that they might have then made a split second decision to see what they could grab is less relevant. The court is obliged to consider the riots as an aggravating factor when sentencing.

I have no sympathy at all with her. Did anybody on here decide to go out on the nights of the riots & steal something? No. Because you have brains and morals...in the main. This greedy individual didn't, and that is why she was supposedly going to be locked up.

Frankly, how dare she whine about it. If fewer morons like that had decided to go out & take whatever they could get, there wouldn't have even been riots all over the place.

Totally 100% THIS.

 

[mistahclarke]

Right, the main point here is that under the law, what she was convicted of, unless I'm very much mistaken, is burglary, not theft (shoplifting). I can't be arsed to explain the legal definition.

presumably the fact the shop was closed and broken into makes it burgulary?

Agree with everything you said here as if happens, but do wish the tough stance was balanced and equal. What percentage did they catch and charge? Was that released?

 

[fork me]

Right, the main point here is that under the law, what she was convicted of, unless I'm very much mistaken, is burglary, not theft (shoplifting). I can't be arsed to explain the legal definition, but take it from me, under the law, what she did was burglary. Which partly explains the longer term.

People still normally get less for a first offence for burglary including breaking and enetering (which she didn't do, the breaking had already been done, she enetered through an open door). When I was burgled in Brighton (Door kicked in, cash and cards stolen, plus fraudulent use of my cards to the tune of nearly a grand), it wasn't a first offence and the guy got a shorter sentence than this girl. He was convicted of burglary, criminal damage and credit card fraud.

Regardless of her sentence, she and she alone is responsible for any buggering up of her future career prospects, and that would be the case whatever time she served. She has a conviction for burglary, which the law seems a serious offence, and that's entirely her own fault.

Granted, but courts are supposed to take such things into consideration. No-one's saying she shouldn't have been punished, just that the punishment is completely out of proportion to the crime committed, compared to other cases.

And secondly, let's get this straight: the sentences dished out for those involved in the riots are based on the aggravating factors, not just that somebody nicked something or broke something.

I'm sorry, but the aggreavating factors just aren't really there in a lot of these cases. Ducking under the blind of an already entered shop is not even close to kicking down the door of a flat.

These are NOT opportunistic thefts, as the people involved didn't just HAPPEN to be passing & had a moment of madness.

...and you know that how? Simple answer, you don't.

 

[fork me]

The mere fact that she has been tried, convicted and sentenced and then let out on bail after 6 days should have been enough punishment but now she goes to the media and complains, put her back in to complete the sentence is my feeling.

Let's get something straight here, she was NOT convicted then let out on bail after 6 days. You get let out on bail BEFORE being convicted, not afterwards, that was shot on the day of nthe trial, not after her sentence. She was charged, jailed, let out on bail after 6 days, THEN sentenced. Nothing there tells us how long she served.

 

[Poyetry In Motion]

No sympathy. take her outside and shoot her with the strikers

 

[Woodchip]

Feck all sympathy. If she was so keen on joining the RAF then she'd have kept her nose clean. Daft tart got what she served.

I am wondering if RAF in her circumstance actually means Retarded As f***.

Sent by yolk folk

 

[Superphil]

1. ...the breaking had already been done, she enetered through an open door).

2. ....just that the punishment is completely out of proportion to the crime committed, compared to other cases.

3. I'm sorry, but the aggreavating factors just aren't really there in a lot of these cases. Ducking under the blind of an already entered shop is not even close to kicking down the door of a flat.

4 . and you know that how? Simple answer, you don't.

1. No she didn't she crawled under a roller shutter.

2. In your opinion, not in everyones.

3. Still an agravating factor.

4. The judge pointed to evidence "it was clear that Corns had been loitering in the city centre on August 9" so yes, it would appear she was there on purpose, not just passing by.

 

[fork me]

1. No she didn't she crawled under a roller shutter.

Which was open, she didn't break it, making that technicality irrelevent.

2. In your opinion, not in everyones.

You think that what she did is MORE serious than kicking in the door of a flat, stealing cash and credit card and then fraudulently using those credit cards? That's a strange opinion.

3. Still an agravating factor.

I didn't claim it wasn't, just I was talking comparitively, as was clear from the post.

4. The judge pointed to evidence "it was clear that Corns had been loitering in the city centre on August 9" so yes, it would appear she was there on purpose, not just passing by.

Being in a city sentence on purpose is not the same as being there for the riot. It may surprise you to know that people often loiter in city centres for purposes other than rioting.

 

[Hillian1]

Which was open, she didn't break it, making that technicality irrelevent.



You think that what she did is MORE serious than kicking in the door of a flat, stealing cash and credit card and then fraudulently using those credit cards? That's a strange opinion.



I didn't claim it wasn't, just I was talking comparitively, as was clear from the post.



Being in a city sentence on purpose is not the same as being there for the riot. It may surprise you to know that people often loiter in city centres for purposes other than rioting.

Don't care, she was caught LOOTING. No sympathy, deserved what she got.

 

[Superphil]

Which was open, she didn't break it, making that technicality irrelevent.

You think that what she did is MORE serious than kicking in the door of a flat, stealing cash and credit card and then fraudulently using those credit cards? That's a strange opinion.

Being in a city sentence on purpose is not the same as being there for the riot. It may surprise you to know that people often loiter in city centres for purposes other than rioting.

She entered the building that had been ransacked by looters, she didn't casually stroll into the store.

Looting and rioting are horrendous crimes, with horrendous outcomes, just look at the effect the rioters had on the whole country. House burglary, is equally a horrendous crime, but no, I don't think one is lesser than the other, the perpetrators of both should be given the maximum punishment, why they don't I don't know. Wasn't there a campaign some years ago for criminal sentences to be clearly defined, removing ambiguity? I think that some people thought that would be an unfair way of dealing with criminals, an opportunity missed in my [strange] opinion.

The Judge agreed “She was seen in the area of three different shops that were looted, in particular the clothing store Zhapp. So she was loitering around 3 stores that were being looted. Do you think she was just waiting for a bus, or maybe plane spotting in readiness for her RAF career? No, and the Judge didn't think that either.

The next day she went to a police station with her mother and told them she was not involved in any way. CCTV proved she was involved (the gloves and the shoes), so we know she is also a liar.

The judge said all the convicted offenders had collectively caused losses to the shop running into thousands of pounds (£30K). The judge reduced the sentence, and said the ten-month term was the shortest sentence consistent with his public duty. So what else could he do, renege on his public duty? If all judges started reneging on their public duty we really will be f***ed.

 

[Wozza]

This Guardian article was excellent. ALMOST makes you feel sorry for the lil' scrotes.

England riots: the personal cost | UK news | The Guardian

 

[Acker79]

You think that what she did is MORE serious than kicking in the door of a flat, stealing cash and credit card and then fraudulently using those credit cards? That's a strange opinion.

Do you think the punishment the guy who burgled your home got was right? You seem to be looking at it as if it is and then comparing her sentence to that. I would suggest less than ten months for breaking into someone's home, stealing their cash, using their credit card, is lower than it should be, especially when it isn't their first offence. Rather than using your burglar's sentence as a reason to feel sorry for this woman, you should be using this to highlight how your burglar got off lightly, imo.

 

[Staly]

As somebody who had to make my way through the early stages of the Manchester riots on my way home from work, it does seem to me that a disproportionate number of the people who have been caught and prosecuted are the naive, stupid and peripheral participants in the trouble.

The people actually doing the damage knew enough to dress non distinctively, hoods up and faces covered. For obvious reasons few of them seem to have been caught (judging from the regular reports in the Manchester Evening News), but I'd much rather the people who smashed their way into the trainer shop in the first place were put away than some silly little girl who wandered in and briefly picked up a pair of trainers.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

presumably the fact the shop was closed and broken into makes it burgulary?

No, the fact that she entered the building or part of the building as a trespasser and then stole makes it a burglary. In theory, if you climbed over the counter of a shop and stole the handbag of a member of staff from under the till, you *could* be guilty of burglary as you do not have permission, express or implied, to be in that part of a shop, therefore are trespassing.

Going back to the individual this thread is about, I don't care even if the shop window in this case was wide open and already caved in (although the fact she had to make the physical effort to crawl under the shutter indicates a degree of awareness/pre-meditation as opposed to just opportunism). This young lady had no right to be in there, but decided her own needs were greater than those of anyone else, and society as a whole, and stole a pair of trainers. Then lied about it when confronted, so, more dishonesty.

If I left my front door unlocked by mistake, does it make it any more acceptable for someone to walk in and burgle my place than if they had to smash a window or jemmy open the door? No, no it doesn't, it's stealing and it's wrong.

This girl is, as things stand, a proven thief and a liar. And one who clearly has little remorse, other than for the fact she got caught. She may not prove to be a lifetime miscreant, hopefully not, and I'm sure her planned career hasn't gone up in smoke anyway, because a single conviction isn't a bar to serving in the armed forces...if that really is what she wants to do as opposed to something she made up to convince the court she was a fine upstanding citizen.

So overall, she hasn't lost much. She won't serve the sentence she's been given (so it appears), she won't be denied the career, and all she has is a lone conviction for acting like a brainless sheep and selfishly using the riots to see what she could get.

My sympathy level still remains at zero.

 

[chimneys]

As somebody who had to make my way through the early stages of the Manchester riots on my way home from work, it does seem to me that a disproportionate number of the people who have been caught and prosecuted are the naive, stupid and peripheral participants in the trouble.

The people actually doing the damage knew enough to dress non distinctively, hoods up and faces covered. For obvious reasons few of them seem to have been caught (judging from the regular reports in the Manchester Evening News), but I'd much rather the people who smashed their way into the trainer shop in the first place were put away than some silly little girl who wandered in and briefly picked up a pair of trainers.

Very much agree, but the easy nicks are what the police/courts/Government need for PR to show they are on top.

Very few of the true perpetrators/ringleaders will ever be punished.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Sentencing this girl to 10 months helps no one. What is needed is a short, sharp shock, which is what she was given. I doubt she'll steal anything again. 10 months is out of proportion.

Strip her down, tie her over a barrel for a day, charge the punters £25 a pop. Ergo, she gets her short, sharp shock, the taxpayers makes some money on the deal and there's 200 happy punters - everyone's a winner?

 

[Superphil]

Very much agree, but the easy nicks are what the police/courts/Government need for PR to show they are on top.

That's a view shared by some, a cynical view, but there you go.

However, every one of them who is convicted is guilty of the crimes committed, whether some 'clever' **** who hides his face to attempt not to be caught, or someone who couldn't control themselves and accidently wandered under a smashed up shutter and stole two left shoes. They are all guilty, and they should all be punished. As and when they do catch any of the ‘true perpetrators’ (as opposed to the fake ones??), then perhaps their punishment will be considered by some as even more disproportionate, let’s hope so.