Woman jailed after riots in Manchester freed by judge

20/08/2011 5:33 pm

And the young man remanded for the fire at the Miss Selfrige store in Manchester has had the charges dropped.

Swift justice is not always good justice.

It's a pity that lawbreaking lawmakers werent all incarcerated for that length of time -- but, sadly, that's our 'justice system'.

21/08/2011 11:51 am

ANOTHER EXAMPLE

Four years in jail for those guys on facebook inciting rioters and even kiling of policemen...

No prosecution WHATSOEVER against those who incited the killing of rioters and looters.

Now why is that the same incitement to kill is not treated equally by the law authorities?

22/08/2011 9:57 am

Melvin - the clause that you refer to has a locality limit and must be applied proportionately. The government are looking to remove the locality limit.

That leaves proportionality. Is it proportionate to loose one's home over the receipt of a stolen item of clothing? If it is then surely others guilty of more serious offences that continue in office or leading businesses must also be similarly sanctioned. The terms unworkable, unjust, and draconian come to mind.

22/08/2011 10:29 am

Nothing you say is untrue Melvin. Where you are going wrong is here:

'People livelyhoods have been wrecked by the opportunistic thieves and their accomplices down the supply chain. Anyone in the supply chain of this criminality deserves the full strength of the law to be applied'

The woman concerned received a stolen item - there is no legal reason to punish her as a collective member of the rioting gangs nor the looting criminals. There is no group offence on the statute books for this - that is why her conviction was appealed and why the appeal was successful.

Thinking otherwise does not infer condone criminality it is condoning due process of law and for that process to be justice. To think otherwise could be construed as being anti-justice and denying of the legal framework of our nation!

I am not suggesting the relaxation of law, simply that it is upheld, equally, for all. Otherwise our law is weakened and undermined, which is of benefit to none but the very anarchists who, as you point out Melvin, have used this period of social stress to cause so much harm and destruction.

22/08/2011 11:35 am

Whether or not the goods were a rubber band , a staple or a £500 stereo, is to me, immsterial. An offence was committed.

What bugs me, are the calls for all offences to be the excuse for eviction. That would imply apple scrumping, swearing, congregating in groups of three or more, nicking a staple, driving offences /, and so on.

The Courts, thankfully, infdependent of government (i.e. the State?) make the decisions on punishment -- not me, not you, not the rabble, not IH posters. etc.

A person is punished for their crime and whether that crime attracts a further pensalty not set by the Criminal Courts (mind you, it's the Court that decides on eviction, does it not?) is a matter of personal opinion.

It is weird, to say the least, that this 'double ounishment' is only being advocated for social tenants and that is what I object to as well.

I am not so sure that a custodial sentence was correct but if it was, then surely the 'trousering MPs' (and, we, the taxpayers, pay towards  all or some of all or some of their housing costs) should have suffered in exactly the same way?

22/08/2011 11:58 am

I am not suggesting the relaxation of law, simply that it is upheld, equally, for all. Otherwise our law is weakened and undermined, which is of benefit to none but the very anarchists who, as you point out Melvin, have used this period of social stress to cause so much harm and destruction.

22/08/2011 12:00 pm

The woman concerned received a stolen item - there is no legal reason to punish her as a collective member of the rioting gangs nor the looting criminals. There is no group offence on the statute books for this - that is why her conviction was appealed and why the appeal was successful.

22/08/2011 1:13 pm

Thanks for that TWIMC...

I think you are being hard on the anarchists. These were violent, nasty, bullying, wreckless thieves plain and simple.

They were not Anarchists. Anarchists do not have tenancies. Anarchists do not want designer labels.

'people should not be convicted of crimes that they have not committed'

I think you will find she was convicted.

22/08/2011 2:41 pm

You are talking pants now...

22/08/2011 8:30 pm

She was in receipt of stolen goods from her lodger.

I don't believe she was offered the Blears option - 'pay for the shorts and we'll let it go.  If you like go public and wave a big cheque infront of the camera's'.

The sentence was disproportionate considering she wasn't rioting and considering what sentence she was likely to get a week before the rule book was thrown out.