Natasha Reid, a 24 year old graduate, was in McDonalds in Enfield on Sunday night. She noticed that Comet was being looted, and went in and helped herself to a £270 television. There is no suggestion that she caused any damage, or was violent in any way. She realised that what she had done was wrong, and handed herself in to the police.
She has been found guilty, and will be sentenced on 1 September. District judge Elizabeth Roscoe told her that her remorse would ‘very much go in your favour’ but warned that she could still face prison because of the ‘serious nature’ of the case.
That would not be appropriate. What Natasha Reid did was wrong, but, bluntly, since she got home with the television, and does not appear to have been caught on camera, she could probably have got away with it. She chose to confess, a remarkably brave thing to do given that sentencing was likely to be harsh.
Many people, without any history of criminal behaviour, seem to have been caught up in what happened. It is plausible that there are others like Natasha, who stole something, and are now regretting it.
The justice system seems to be able to distinguish between people like these and between those who saw what happened as a great opportunity to steal and would do the same again.
The authorities should therefore declare that anyone guilty of theft, who gives themselves up, and returns the goods undamaged, will be given a conditional discharge. This means that they will not have a criminal record, unless they repeat the offence. Those who stole consumables, such as alcohol or cigarettes, could confess and pay for the items. This would not apply to those who damaged property or were violent.
The idea is to encourage everyone who, at some point in the last few days, did something they regret in a moment of madness to come forward and say that what they did was wrong, that they regret it, and to return the property that they stole. People would be given four days to report what they did. They could do it in person, or online.
But equally, the authorities should offer rewards to those who report others who stole, damaged, or were violent. The authorities would announce this too, and the rewards would begin as soon as the four days were up.
It will do no-one any good if people like Natasha Reid are sent to prison and given a criminal record. A criminal record makes it less likely that she will find work, and make it more likely that she will end up on benefits. Prisons are full, and regular early release schemes let seasoned criminals out all the time. Better to keep them in than to release them to make a place for the fairly harmless Ms Reid.
We know too that prisons are factories of crime, where we do not want people to end up unless they are a danger to the public. Ms Reid is no such thing.
And above all, we want the community to come together, in truth and reconciliation. That is best served by encouraging as many people as possible to follow Ms Reid’s example, and step forward, confess, apologise, and repay. An offer of a conditional discharge makes that more likely, and so makes it more likely that communities can come together again and move on.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Full slate of Lib Dems in council by-elections
Getting things done - West Port #dundeewestend
Payback time
The Joy of Six 1274
Gasping Local Government.
The Chagos Islands, Mauritius and the ICJ
Honouring the Real Thing and launching Black History Month in Liverpool
Russell
Peter Martin
Peter Davies
Dave Tate
67 Comments
I’m actually fairly sure that theft IS a crime. I know, it was a shock to me, too – but I’m 100% sure that taking stuff that isn’t yours is against the law (though if anyone with legal training wants to correct me, I’m happy to hear evidence to the contrary).
There are a zillion CCTV cameras in London. It’s ridiculous to think that she wasn’t caught just like everyone else. She’d have been found, like the thousands of people who have been on the front pages of the tabloids and that the police are getting reports about day in, day out.
The only reason she shouldn’t be imprisoned is the sheer practicality that we don’t have enough prison spaces to imprison genuinely dangerous people and can’t waste them on petty opportunistic thieves. Otherwise 2-4 weeks would assist her in remembering not to steal things (clearly, she needs more reminding than I do – I haven’t stolen anything today, I’m doing really well!) whilst not turning her into a hardened crack dealing murderer which would admittedly be fairly unproductive.
Yes. The rioting was essentially a terrorist attack on the rest of society instigated by the armed drug gangs in response to the police shooting of one their own. People like Natasha were just opportunists. Sentencing should reflect accordingly.
A moment of madness, but given her background, she has no excuses for theft.
Perhaps you should wait for the sentencing before sheding tears for Natasha Reid.
The district judge will be far better qualified than you to decide on an appropriate sentence, and will know much more about the full facts of the case than you can from a few newspaper articles.
I think there is a difference between being liberal and being a soft touch. The only reason she probably handed herself in is because she realized there was a good chance of being caught on CCTV. In fact she might of caught herself on tv. Being smart she thought handing herself in was the best option. You might not realize it yet but if your soft on stuff like this there will be ten times as many, or more, next time. Sorry I got caught up in it does not wash. If they were smart enough to take advantage of the situation and do the crime then they should pay the price.
Upon reflection, can somebody please check – is this article legit, or is it a parody of the worst kind of out-of-touch Liberalism written by Richard Litlejohn?
Also I don’t think prisons are the factories of crime they once were. In the past criminals would meet other criminals there and that would help them set up networks. These days they make all the conections they need through the illegal drug network ( one of the disadvatages of drugs being treated as a criminal problem and not a medical problem ). If they aren’t in prison these days they spend all thier time getting the kids in the local area to do it. Lure them in with the drugs, which means you’ve got them through the barrier of brakeing the law and then get them to commit ever more serious crimes. Going to prison these days is just a place to have a break with your mates.
Giving people an amnesty if they show remorse within four days of commiting a crime would rather fly in the face of centuries of legal practice. And it’s not as if this was a crime of passion: sitting in McDonalds and looking over at Comet and thinking “I could go in there and have myself a TV” is clearly premeditated.
Purely speculating, I might wonder whether a 24 year old in McDonalds late in the evening had not also been drinking. The law tends not to look too kindly on arguments based on sober reflection.
Finally, I would note that the suggestion that “The authorities [to] declare that anyone…who gives themselves up …will be given a conditional discharge” infers that the authorities have discretion to waive the rule of law. I’m not sure that that is the case. Do politicians have the power to influence sentencing other than through legislation? Do they have the power to do so after the fact? (Retrospective legislation is an afront to the rule of law by its very nature.) Are the courts allowed to judge any case other than in isolation and on its merits? I’m not sure that I would want to live in a world where justice was so arbitrary, and where politicians had so much discretionary power.
The reason a lot of otherwise law abiding people took the oportunity to help themselves was because they thought there would be no consequences. If we want to stop this happening again then a strong signal that there will be consequences needs to be sent. This may seem a little harsh in some cases but I think it is neccessary
“that taking stuff that isn’t yours is against the law (though if anyone with legal training wants to correct me, I’m happy to hear evidence to the contrary).”
Sort of 🙂
Theft is the “dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive”. So just taking stuff isn’t sufficient for it to be theft (ie if you weren’t acting dishonestly).
Dishonesty is assessed on a two part test of:
1) was the conduct dishonest according to a “reasonable person test”
2) If so did the believe they were acting dishonestly.
I think that a conditional discharge still results in a criminal record as it is covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
Is this still a Liberal Democrat website?
I find the desire to imprison people in an over-stretched and clearly malfunctioning prison system quite worrying.
Do we really think imprisoning 2-3000 people is going to help when they come out of prison with no employement prospects (and possibly no home)- a good proportion for non-violent crimes. Use prison when there is no other option but is this going to the case for all?
Some of these comments are those I would expect to here from the authoritarians in the Liberal and Tory parties
It seems that second chances and repayment of assets obtained through dishonest means (whatever the intentions!!!) is the preserve of the rich. Perhaps a few more harsh sentences for tax evaders, MPs who claimed far more than they should have and insider-dealing bankers may help with this desire for ‘sending a message’.
‘But equally, the authorities should offer rewards to those who report others who stole, damaged, or were violent. ‘ That’s a ridiculous idea. It would set a bad precedent and lead to a whole host of scams.
Is getting hold of a tv for free a ‘moment of madness’? I don’t think so, as someone who has only a very dodgy old third hand tv and not much chance of being able to afford a new one. Cameron says young people don’t know the difference between right and wrong, but I don’t think most MPs do either.
The articles on this site show just how far the Lib Dems have moved to the right.
Those who think that everyone who stole something or caused any damage will be caught because of CCTV are living in cloud cuckoo land. CCTV just isn’t that effective. If it was, crime would have been stamped out long ago!
I am not denying that Natasha committed a crime – but a conditional discharge seems to me to be the appropriate response to this case.
I agree with Tim. The advertising industry encourages people to want things they cannot have.
For a brief moment it was possible for people on low incomes to just take stuff and not be caught. Many did, including normally law abiding people.
If she is imprisoned, then what incentive is there for people to come clean?
When Dave,George and Boris of Bullingdon Club went on the rampage.They just said sorry and paid the bill for the damage.
As punishment they now run the Country.
Tim
In some cases it may be necessary that rioters receive significant punishment – over and above the normal – due to the violence and fear caused
What I find more difficult to accept is that those who have taken advantage and carried out non-violent crimes in the aftermath are being treated so excessively. Apparently most cases are being sent to Crown Court and bail is being refused. This is for me inappropriate and is not going to help prevent the next violent disorder – the ones committing the violence will not be deterred by sending people to prison for stealing bottles of water or accepting goods stolen in the riots.
Will we have the same punishments for those who take advantage of illegal hosting of copyrighted material on the internet, who buy counterfeit DVDs or clothes from the local market. Or those who lie about who is driving in order to avoid points on their licence?
The punishment has to fit the crime whatever the circumstances – the same law should apply to all. It seems carrying out non-violent crime at the time of a riot is treated more seriously than those who mug or assault people but do it when there is no riot
I hope she is not sent to prison, you can’t judge a person by what they did on one occasion. In fact, what she did since, (i.e. hand herself in) probably says more about her than the actual act itself. It’s very easy to get caught up in things.
Our society is broken, people from all walks of life seem to think it’s OK to help themselves to things at society’s expense simply because they can. Whether it’s rioters looting, MPs fiddling expenses, bankers ripping off the public, the super rich abusing the taxation system, or the police accepting bribes from the gutter press its root cause is the same. Some how our collective moral compass has gone wobbly.
We might all be individuals but we don’t exist in isolation from one and other, so we need to learn to care about society as a whole. Since Thatcher we’ve been encouraged not to do that.
Ironically social democrats such as myself, often called ‘socialist authoritarians’ or the like for our belief in social justice by the usual suspects on these comment pages, are usually, in reality, more liberal and reasonable than said usual suspects.
As yourself a simple question. What is to be gained by imprisoning this woman?
The answer is obvious: nothing.
No real need for revenge, since she repented for her crime and no damage was done.
The ‘deterrent’ effect would actually be a bad one. When you imprison someone like this who has confessed to a petty theft pretty much immediately after committing it and repaid all damage, the message you are sending out is not ‘don’t steal or you’ll be sent to prison’… people already know this.
The message you send out is in fact ‘if you steal, feel guilty and then confess and pay back the damage, don’t expect leniency.’ or other words ‘Don’t let your conscience get the better of you’.
I think she should be made to do community service, but absolutely nothing postivie is achieved by imprisoning this person. In fact the consequences would be wholly negative: another expensive burden on the state, another prisoner in an overcrowded system, crippling this person’s future opportunities to be a productive member of society, possibly educating this person in crime, sending the message out to people with guilty consciences that they should, under no circumstances, confess.
What are the postivies of imprisonment? None
So the answer, for rational people, as opposed to the overly emotional, vengful, property>people, ‘laissez faire’ hang ’em and flog em entryists, is obvious.
@bazsc
“Is this still a Liberal Democrat website?”
Not really. The top of the site is (misleadingly) headed:
“Liberal Democrat Voice
Our place to talk”
However most Lib Dems I know do not regard LDV as “our” place to talk. Mainly because they feel they are often crowded out by the large number of (mainly anonymous) non-Lib Dems.
@Rob
“Ironically social democrats such as myself, often called ‘socialist authoritarians’ or the like for our belief in social justice by the usual suspects on these comment pages, are usually, in reality, more liberal and reasonable than said usual suspects.”
On that definition, Rob, are you saying that the (“Law and Order is safe in our hands”) Labour Party now contains few, if any, Social Democrats?
Rob
I agree with most of your post (not surprising) but I have one little quibble on the ‘don’t steal or you will get sent to prison’ – I do not think prison is the right punishment for all cases of stealing, as I think you recognise further down in your post
We need to ensure we keep the reletavism right. If you steal with aggravation, do not show remorse and are a known criminal then prison may be orrect. If it is your first crime, you show remorse and there was no violence then how can you justify prison. I would imagine that most people have commited some sort of ‘theft’ in their life – mostly very minor – and would not necessarily expect to go to prison for it.
It seems with these riots there has been a decision (made by who?) that anyone convicted for anythinked linked to these riots will receive punishment excessive to their crime with future consequences for them, their family and ultimately society. A ridiculous approach and I must admit I have been left a bit shocked by some of the comments on here – I thought, as you said, that is was us social democrats who were supposed to be authoritarian!!!!
Simon Shaw
What do you count as a Lib Dem – do you have to be a member? The shock I was expressing is that there are posters who in the past have criticised the Labour Party (rightly) for authoritarian and excessive reponses to situations. I always said it would be interesting to see the Coalition resoponse to a similar situation – and we have the answer, more of the same. Talking of curfews, banning social networking and focusing on reactive aggressive policing than trying to understand why people (some of them normally law-abiding) behaved like that.
I voted for the Alliance/Lib Dems in 1987, 2001, 2005 and 2010. Labour in 92 and 97 – does that allow me to call myself a lib dem or not – or do you want only purebreeds?
No political party supports my values completely but I have taken that the majority was LD coupled with a bit of Labour and a very little Tory – that is why I voted for the party.
I would like to continue voting for the party and I think without the threesome of Clegg, Alexander and Laws I would do.
If you want the party to move in their direction the so be it and you will see voters such as me leave it to you.
Just out of interest what is your view on this subject?
Rob: The trouble here is, you have very litle information about the case (and what informatino we DO have seems to come from the Daily Mail).
The district judge will have all the facts, and is the person best qualified to judge, hence her job title.
@bazsc
You asked “Is this still a Liberal Democrat website?”
I took it that you were misled (as many are) by the heading
“Liberal Democrat Voice
Our place to talk”
Those who run the site have acknowledged, in the past, that saying “Our place to talk” is effectively meaningless.
That’s why I said “Nor really” in answer to your question.
As to my view on the subject, I am inclined to trust in the judicial process.
@Bazsc “Perhaps a few more harsh sentences for tax evaders, MPs who claimed far more than they should have and insider-dealing bankers may help with this desire for ‘sending a message’.”
can you let us know what the sentences were for tax evading and insider dealers were that you think too lenient?
@Simon Shaw
I don’t know/care what people in the Labour party think, I am a (disappointed) Liberal DEMOCRAT member, The second word is capitalised for a reason, you might remember a merger sometime back.
As much as a I do know about the Labour party, I know that it;s increasing authoritarianism has accompanied it’s broader move to the right on some social issues as well as economics. The socialist left of the party also, contrary to the disingeous narrative of the right both in the Tory party and the Lib Dem party, is also the more liberal.
My chief point being that there has been a disingenous attempt by right-wingers both in the Tory party and in the Liberal democrats (in fact partly inspired by Hayek) to potray social democratic and left-wing politics and beliefs about economics to be inherently more authoritarian than the political beliefs of the right. If nothing else, the coalition’s generally laughable response to these riots has shown this right-wing received wisdom to be a load of old baloney.
@Simon Shaw
I think the following is on just about every page….
“Liberal Democrat Voice is an independent, collaborative website run by Liberal Democrat activists, where any individual inside or outside the party can express their views. Views expressed on this website are those of the individuals who express them and may not reflect those of the party. ”
Personally I have never been a member of any political party (as an ex servicemen that was never a right anyway for a substantial part of my life). However, I voted Lib Dem at the last election and like many others have mixed feelings about what has been done with my vote. I support a great deal of what has been achieved but like many others will criticise issues (particulalry those such as Tuition fees where I believe promises were broken). Even if I hadn’t voted Lib Dem at the last election the “any individual inside or outside the party” bit would encourage posting.
To my understanding there is a member only section where us pesky non-members do not need to spoil peoples days with opposing viewpoints ! No Party has ever won with just its members, or even its core support. Surely though for future success it is those unsure but inclined towards the Lib Dems, or those like myself who waiver over continuing support, who need to be engaged in the debate ? When I read the comments of some on here it reminds of why I supported the party at the last election and am fairly likely to do so at the next.
Rant over, on this subject like you I would say the only place for this decision is within the judicial process. I still have faith that despite Labours attempts to circumvent it, the criminal justice system is equiped to deliver appropriate justice. There is a danger that the coverage of these riots can turn us all in temporary hanging judges. Sure there needs to be some harsh punishments meeted out to the worst offenders, but we must not lose sight of the fact that for some, first time offenders particularly, we need to be as concerned about ensuring we stop a cycle of criminal behaviour being created. I wouldn’t want the job of Magistrate or Judge at the moments and I wish them well in achieving the best outcomes….
@Rob
” the coalition’s generally laughable response to these riots has shown this right-wing received wisdom to be a load of old baloney.”
I’m sorry, Rob, I genuinely don’t know where you are coming from on this.
When people talk about a “generally laughable response to these riots” they normally mean that from an authoritarian, right-wing pespective. But I don’t think that is where you are coming from, is it?
“I am inclined to trust in the judicial process.”
Well I’m not. 6 months in the slammer for walking down a road carrying a balaclava and a bin bag is disproportionate for the non-crime of “going equipped”. A 14-year-old boy in court for putting his hand through an already broken window and taking one packet of chewing gum is plain stupid. I wonder if he’d offered to give it back – like so many MPs who stole from the public purse – if that would have been the end of the matter? I somehow doubt it.
By last week, we already had 85,931 people in prison, so where are all these extra ones going to go? Why not sentence them to transportation for life instead? Why not hang five-year-olds like they could a couple of hundred years ago? We know Cameron wants to take us back to the 18th century and make us all grovel for survival to arrogant toffs like him, but I thought the Liberal Democrats knew better than to acquiesce as we descend into fascism with the prospect of batons, water cannons and social media censorship.
http://cuttingedgeuk.proboards.com/index.cgi
If your a memember of the Liberal Democrat then your a Liberal Democrat,full stop. As the party is a democratic party then being a lib dem is whatever the majority of the party says it is. And if your a good Lib Dem you don’t get in a huff whenever you don’t get everything you want, you stay in the party and help it develope it’s ideas using logic and reason. Viva Lib Dems.
“When people talk about a “generally laughable response to these riots” they normally mean that from an authoritarian, right-wing pespective. But I don’t think that is where you are coming from, is it?”
Know I mean the response has been laughable, generally.
Firstly when the riots actually started the government didn’t have a clue what to do and didn’t act effectively. Personally I would have suggested a temporary kurfew for the effective areas as well as allowing the police to use rubber bullets and tear gas when necessary. So, in that much at least. I would agree with the authoritarian brigade that not nearly enough was done quick enough.
However, the reponse after the event has also been laughable. Now the conservatives are suggesting closing down social media and telephone communication in the event of a riot, as well as authorising the use of water cannon. Aside from the fact that both measures set dangerous precedents, and the first measure is clearly illiberal, the conservatives seem amusingly ignorant of the technical and strategic limitations of such measures. As the Met pointed out water cannon would have been useless and shutting down communications could only effectively be done by blocking entire networks.
The idea of shutting down communications for whole areas really worried me though. I know kurfew is also, in a sense, collective punishment (although punishment is not the aim), but it can be effectively localised and does not block communications. Since it would only be effective in the kinds of riots we have recently seen, it does not pose the same danger to civil liberties as the idea of communications blackouts do.
If you set that kind of precedent what happens in the future if peaceful demonstrations are piggy backed by a few trouble makers, as was the case in the student protests and anti-cuts protests? I wouldn’t trust the police or the government not to blackout the whole area where the demonstrations are taking place. Aside from anything else it would prevent worried people from communicating with each other.
However my concerns are purely academic, since the measures proposed by Cameron and the conservatives are both ineffective and unenforcable. Thank God for an independent police force with a bit of intelligence behind it. Just think, how great it is to have an unpoliticised police force free from, for example, elected police commissioners!
Largely agree with this post. Nothing of consequence to be gained by jailing this woman, except for the fact that her life chances will be ruined despite the fact that she is a graduate.
I know there is license for the British public to experience cathartic release with “flog-em-and-hang-em” histrionics, but the riots were not uniform. Some were opportunistic looting. Others were violent and sadistic. Treating them all as the same is simplistic, and of course, unjust.
mpg: ” the riots were not uniform”
Which is precisely why the courts are not treating all people the same, e.g. Natasha Reid has been released on bail while many others accused of similar offences have been remanded in custody.
You are railing against something which hasn’t happened yet. This woman has not been sentenced.
As for her life chances, whatever happens in this case, let’s not forget one thing. If her life chances are reduced, she will have nobody to blame but herself. The usual excuses of youth, lack of education etc do not seem to apply in her case. In fact, her education is vastly superior to that which millions of young people can hope to afford in the future.
Rob: “Now the conservatives are suggesting closing down social media and telephone communication in the event of a riot [which is] clearly illiberal.”
Where have “the conservatives” suggested that? All Cameron has actually done is start some tentative discussions to explore whether any restrictions on certain social networks in the event of a crisis would be “right and possible”. Note the word “right”. This is something that needs to be discussed rationally and thoughtfully, and the knee-jerk reaction from Liberals isn’t helpful.
If (being very specific) Greater Manchester Police had been able to close down the Blackberry messaging network for a few hours last Tuesday night, this would seem to me to be a very trivial curtailment of civil liberties compared to the curfew you suggest.
Liberals are deeply hypocritical on this issue. Last November the police forcibly stopped young people from protesting outside Liberal Democrat headquarters. Liberal outrage against THAT was, quite literally, non-existant. Since when has the freedom to use Blackberries and other gadgets been more important than the freedom to walk down a street and protest?
Tim you are absolutely right – as a Criminal Barrister – I am appalled by the unlawful and manifestly excessive sentences that are being meted out in these cases.
I expand and explain in the following article:
http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2011/08/now-is-the-not-the-time-for-mad-magistrates-and-crazy-judges/
The rule of law must surely either be upheld, or not be upheld. the debate here about degree of culpability is superfluous since the police and courts work on that – if a 14 year old is taken through the courts for stealing gum, say, that might at least deter future criminality; not sure what not bothering that it’s worthwhile to do so will communicate to him/her. It’s NOT illiberal to want the rule of law upheld – quite the reverse, since otherwise badly behaved individuals will exploit the failure to their own profit, just ask the bankers,politicians, cops and journalists about that!
And by the way, although I am angry with the looters, I am also incensed with those at the top of society who have abused their positions of trust. Personally, I feel that the only difference between the looters and the bankers, politicians etc is that the bad amongst the latter haven’t been seen on tv taking things, but takings things they have indeed been doing. Where are the celebrity campaigns against that?!
Stuart – I think your irritation with the LDs is clouding your thinking. Of course the police stopped a mob which had sacked other parts of London from doing the same in Cowley Street; the right to rampage, damage and intimidate does not form part of the right to protest. Suggest you have a cup of tea and work off your ire doing something constructive in real time?
John
ps: the conservatism I heard from cameron today certainly gives me pause for thought – the riots are all the fault of absent fathers/social media/health and safety laws (I think I didi hear that right!) and schools …. happy days.
@Ray North
“Tim you are absolutely right – as a Criminal Barrister – I am appalled by the unlawful and manifestly excessive sentences”
Would that be (principally) a Defence or Prosecuting Criminal Barrister, Ray?
Having read your article, I cannot understand why you claim the sentences are “unlawful” – a fairly serious claim I would have thought.
Your article alleges that a 6 month sentence is “unlawful”, on the grounds that anyone who pleads guilty at the first opportunity should be given a credit of a third off any custodial sentence.
I have always understood that theft carries a maximum sentence of 5 years, so if a Court felt that (say) 9 months was the appropriate sentence for someone found guilty (having not pleaded guilty at the first opportunity), then surely 6 months could well be an appropriate sentence in this case?
Or have I misunderstood?
Why does nobody want to confront the fact that evicting entire families from their homes due to the actions of one family member is nothing more then collective punishment? If we were at war with these people, evicting them would be against the Geneva Conventions.
Making entire families homeless due to one bad member is disgusting and highly illiberal to me. Are we now going to start evicting council tenants for speeding convictions? Are we going to evict entire families if one member of the family is convicted of being drunk and disorderly? Can we please have Charles Kennedy back, or at least, someone who will stand up to Cameron and propose a liberal or more compassionate response, or are LDs just going to continue to let the Tories get on with continuing Labour’s crackdown on civil liberties? I never, ever thought I would see LibDems defending authoritarian policies, but it just goes to show that all parties are the same.
Hell, a man was arrested the other day for organising a water fight on Facebook. For fun. A week or so ago, there was a water pistol fight in Iran. And the authorities there didn’t like it, either. What is happening to our country when such punishment is given to those on the bottom while most MPs who fiddled their expenses got off with a slap on the hand and repayment? Why are they facing harsher punishment than Bankers who crashed our economy and made hundreds of thousands of people unemployed?
“Those who would trade a little liberty for increased security deserve neither.” – Benjamin Franklin
John M: I have read many accounts of what happened on 24th November, none of which are remotely similar to yours. The following is very typical:-
“I saw the early part of this demo which was good natured and peaceful. The students were bottled up in Whitehall and prevented from demonstrating outside the Lib Dem HQ which was frustrating them. The police action was overdone, particularly the use of batons possibly against school children.”
When do Lib Dems approve of kettling children and curtailing the right to protest? When they’re worried about the windows at Lib Dem HQ, apparently.
“The district judge will be far better qualified than you to decide on an appropriate sentence”
When you have had an overpaid second rate solicitor fall asleep in court in front of you, you might not say that. There is VERY variable quality among district judges. Some are truly excellent. others you would not want representing your opponent or yourself, let alone presiding over a court. And there is NO quality control, whatsosever.
Stuart Mitchell
“When do Lib Dems approve of kettling children and curtailing the right to protest? When they’re worried about the windows at Lib Dem HQ, apparently.”
Isn’t the real problem, Stuart, that too many have difficulty distinguishing between legitimate (peaceful) protest and criminal damage/rioting? After all it’s not as if there weren’t any precedents for things degenerating into criminality.
What’s your solution?
I listened to Julian Huppert on Radio 5 this evening. He talked a massive amount of sense and was clear where Lib Dems differ from Tories, more of this needed I think. The need for some fairly drastic policing at the height of a riot does not mean we need to have knee jerk reactions in policy and certainly not in legislation. Labour made this mistake too many times.
Good Stuff I thought……
People doing stupid thngs because they are young, drunk, caried aay by the excitement, and unable to see at the time how hurtful they are to other people whose valued property they are destroying …
What about burning down a prized cactus collection? I’d say that deserves a long sentence in prison as an example to deter others …
A mother of two, with no police record, who did not participate in rioting or looting, was today sentenced to six months imprisonment because a looter left a pair of shoes at her house. That is knee-jerk insanity, rapists have got less, bankers have got nothing.
Cameron is shouting encouragement at councils to evict entire families for the actions of one family member, only one other country in the world punishes entire families for the actions of one member, and that country is North Korea.
He wants to be able to shut down social media, Tories including Boris are making noises about national service (would this include being sent to our foreign wars), noises about arming the police, noises about every form of punishment under the sun and disregarding the underlying social problems. Do Lib Dem’s really want to be remembered for the aiding and abetting of the first stages of an authoritarian state?
The moral problem is not single mothers as the Christian Right are shouting, the moral problem is a complete lack of morality at the top of our society, bankers and tax evaders and nose in the trough MP’s, the moral bankruptcy of those in society who are supposed to set the moral example.
The moral problem is the ever widening wealth gap, where the richest become wealthier and wealthier at the expense of the rest of society and the rest of society is forced to pay the richest s debts when they make investment mistakes.
The moral problem is a country with so many people who feel they have no future and no stake in the rest of society.
The moral problem is politicians who *know* that gang culture in this country is solely down to the prohibition on drugs creating these gangs and financing them, a country where we’d rather put addicts in prison instead of helping them as we help all other addicts, a political elite who refuse to even address the question, seeming to prefer prohibiting the victimless crime of drug taking at the expense of the killing and the gang violence and culture that blight’s the land. A fraction of the budget that’s used against this without even making a hole in the ocean could be spent on treatment and anti drugs education. Only reserving harsh penalty’s for those who sell drugs to children.
That is the Broken Society, that is the moral abyss of our society and if we move further towards the fascist state as the knee jerk reaction seems to be driving us, it can only deepen and it can only worsen.
“And above all, we want the community to come together, in truth and reconciliation. That is best served by encouraging as many people as possible to follow Ms Reid’s example, and step forward, confess, apologise, and repay.”
Just out of curiosity, did Viscount Falkland ever repay the estimated £200,000 of taxpayers’ money that he claimed by pretending that his main residence was his wife’s aunt’s oast house, when in fact he lived in his own house in Clapham?
If that ever happens it may be worth taking some of the party’s posturing seriously, but I suspect it never has and never will.
Amy McLeod: “A mother of two, with no police record, who did not participate in rioting or looting, was today sentenced to six months imprisonment because a looter left a pair of shoes at her house.”
Are you by any chance referring to the same case as this Manchester Evening News report?
“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…
“The court heard how Miss Corbett, a call centre worker, had travelled into Manchester after watching the riots unfold on TV. When she spotted that there was no one guarding the ransacked Vans shop in the Northern Quarter, she helped herself to a pile of goods…
“Judge Khalid Qureshi, sentencing, said: “The first reaction you would expect some to have is ‘get that stuff out of my house, I have two children that I’m responsible for’. You would expect decent people to speak up and say ‘no, this is wrong, get that out of my house’. You are a role model to your sons, yet you decided to have a look at the goods and keep some for yourself.”
I wonder how many apologists for the looters would be quite so “understanding” if they came home to find a bunch of opportunistic looters carrying stuff out of their house following an earlier break-in, or saw somebody walking around in their clothes which had been passed on by a burglar friend.
@Steve Way
“I listened to Julian Huppert on Radio 5 this evening. He talked a massive amount of sense and was clear where Lib Dems differ from Tories, more of this needed I think. The need for some fairly drastic policing at the height of a riot does not mean we need to have knee jerk reactions in policy and certainly not in legislation. Labour made this mistake too many times.
Good Stuff I thought……”
Steve, I know many things about the coalition have disappointed you, but you are clearly a Liberal Democrat.
You’ve not been a member of any political party, because you were in the armed services, but have you thought about making that step now?
See https://www.libdems.org.uk/join_us.aspx
Joining the Lib Dems wouldn’t curtail your freedom to criticise the party. Far from it. You’ll have heard many Lib Dem members more vociferous than you in their criticisms of the party.
But joining gives you a vote in party elections, and a voice within the party.
If you do, I for one would welcome it.
– George
PS Glad you like what Julian Huppert said. He’s my local MP.
“I wonder how many apologists for the looters would be quite so “understanding” if they came home to find a bunch of opportunistic looters carrying stuff out of their house following an earlier break-in, or saw somebody walking around in their clothes which had been passed on by a burglar friend.”
Honestly? If a single mother of two stole my shoes and then gave them back/ paid me for them and apologised sincerely, I certainly wouldn’t want them to suffer a custodial setence. Hell, for the sake of their children’s happiness even if they didn’t sincerely apologise or give the stuff back I wouldn’t want them to go to prison… although I wouldn’t mind a court forcing her to pay up.
The problem with the hang ’em and flog ’em brigade is that you all seem to think that if anyone was in the position of the victims they would want the most severe and counter-productive punishments imaginable.
FIrstly law isn’t and shouldn’t be decided on that basis, and thank God for that, but secondly I am honestly not a vindictive person. I would be angry to say the least, but I do not believe in revenge for revenge’s sake but in having the criminal redeem themselves by giving back whatever they may have taken from me. These aren’t just empty words, it is how I conduct my day to day life.
I don’t expect the law to be so forgiving, for a number of reasosn, but jailing a mother of two for handling stolen goods is to me very excessive, especially considering for the time she is in prison her children may well go into care. I would prefer fines and community service for people who either undertook minor acts of theft (but didn’t participate in the riots themselvs) for the first time or people who merely handled the goods.
“What is gained by punishing the woman?” is a question which should be balanced by the opposing “What would be gained by not punishing her?”
I’m glad we have a professional justice system where experienced people are trained to evaluate these issues and how they relate to each individual case. So I also support Tim’s argument that consideration should be given to the precedents which could be set in untried circumstances such as occurred during recent events.
We can neither ignore the crimes committed, the impact of dealing with them nor what it says about our hyper-sensitised society where everyone automatically reacts to various stimuli as though pre-programmed – and that includes many of the commenters here and elsewhere who simply give voice to standardised political positions in repetition of those party figures they support most.
If we want to prevent a downwards spiral then we must encourage more original thinking so that more people are more confident to know when to stand apart from the crowd when the course of events might sweep them up.
Thanks, Tim, I agree with your sentiments although I think perhaps you may be confusing a conditional discharge with a caution when it comes to a criminal record.
The courts’ response to the rioters is almost as depressing as the riots themselves. I gather they have been told to ignore sentencing guidelines and simply lock everyone up, which sounds more life Gaddafi’s Libya than the UK. But prison by itself isn’t a punishment: it’s a means of keeping dangerous and persistent criminals away from society and at least in theory an enforcement mechanism to ensure they serve their so-called sentence and/or rehabilitation if they can’t be trusted to do this outside. Many prisoners regard it not as a deprival of liberty but simply as home. Of course there are aspects of prison which can be regarded as punishment: breaking up families, taking away people’s jobs, rape, bullying and beatings, locking people up for 23 hours a day without human contact – but officially this country is against the use of torture whether mental or physical.
Personally, I would far rather that non-dangerous and apologetic rioters were punished properly through a hefty fine if they can afford it and/or properly supervised community service than given a holiday at full board (or subjected to torture or enrolled on a course at a university of crime, depending on your view of prison) at taxpayers’ expense.
“A mother of two, with no police record, who did not participate in rioting or looting, was today sentenced to six months imprisonment because a looter left a pair of shoes at her house. That is knee-jerk insanity”
Well, yes, it is. But should we not also be quite clear that it is only the truly over-the-top sentences, like that example, that we oppose?
The first thing that mattered was to stop the riots. In these exceptional circumstances, the idea of an exemplary sentence made much more sense than it normally does. The vast majority of the public understand that. Yes, that vast majority includes the hangem and floggem brigade, but it includes a lot of more reasonable people as well.
If Lib Dems say that they don’t agree, then the vast majority of the public will just say that they don’t understand the Lib Dems. The vast majority of the public will also say, when Lib Dems come up with sensible and progressive ideas to tackle the root causes of the riots, that they don’t intend to pay any attention to what a bunch of unrealistic do-gooders might think!
Rob: “If a single mother of two stole my shoes and then gave them back/ paid me for them and apologised sincerely, I certainly wouldn’t want them to suffer a custodial setence.”
Nor would I, but that’s nothing like the case I was talking about. If such a woman stole or received my shoes as part of a much more substantial robbery, and made no attempt to apologise until she was actually caught by the police and charged, then I wouldn’t mind her receiving a custodial sentence. This woman didn’t “give” anything back, she was caught wearing them.
I’m not quite sure what people are trying to achieve by putting a sugar-coated gloss on the actions of some of these looters. If what they were doing were really not so bad then it wouldn’t be necessary to present completely distorted accounts of the cases.
@Tim Leunig
I think @Paul K is right about the difference between a caution and a conditional discharge, but I applaud the sentiment you are expressing. Locking people up for the sake of it is a bad idea.
That said, I don’t know the exact situation with this Natasha Reid, the court will. I would hope that the judge would have a similar attitude to you, and it may be his warning about a possible jail sentence is a signal that this was a serious crime, even though he might not actually jail her.
If he does decide to jail her on Sept 1st, I would like to think it is because of factors you and I are unaware of.
@Paul K “I gather they have been told to ignore sentencing guidelines and simply lock everyone up, which sounds more life Gaddafi’s Libya than the UK”
Are you sure about that? Politicians can pontificate all they like, but surely judges are still independent, aren’t they?
@David Allen
I completely agree with you that the party has to be careful to not present itself as a patsy to the criminal. And I think our leaders are wise to discuss this behind closed doors.
But neither Tim Leunig not any of us speak for the party, and so are not under the same constraints. We’re discussing a serious issue. And I think the principles of the independence of the judiciary, due process, and the guilty being sentenced by judges, not the tabloids, are worth upholding.
I don’t think Natasha Reid has a leg to stand on. Opportunism, theft, blinking rioting! Being a Liberal Democrat should not make you want to let her off. What about the staff at Comet who may well have to pay for thefts out of their wages? (Maybe not in these extreme circumstances.) Does she think TVs make themselves out of materials that just happen to have landed at the factory, ship themselves on a magic carpet, put themselves on the shop shelves and sell themselves. Shops and the work they provide are struggling to survive. What about all the people who have worked hard so that she could just help herself? Any Liberal Democrat must surely believe the labourer is worthy of his hire. Or am I muddling us up with principled people who care about honest workers?
Please don’t be so pathetic.
In the present circumstances there is not enough time for the courts to treat all the accused differently. However I wish this spoilt brat could be made to do some hard labour instead. Perhaps it would teach her to take seriously that other people have to work hard for what they have.
George: “Locking people up for the sake of it is a bad idea.”
Yes, but what about locking people up for rioting and looting?
Judith: I think Nick Clegg actually put it very well :-
“As a liberal, I see violence and disorder of this kind as an attack on liberty, on the freedom for individuals to live and trade in peace in their own communities.”
I’m sure the vast majority of Lib Dem voters out there would agree with Clegg’s view, whatever the activists on LDV may say.
Judith – I was very clear that my suggestion only applied to people who return the goods, undamaged. There would then be nothing for the shop staff/managers/share holders/insurance company to pay for. One of the aims of my suggestion is to get more people to return the goods, so that the bill to the shop staff/managers/share holders/insurance company goes down. I think Natasha realises that people have to pay for what they have, which is why she returned the goods, unlike the lady who appears to have been happy enough to receive stolen goods from her lodger.
“I think our leaders are wise to discuss this behind closed doors. But neither Tim Leunig not any of us speak for the party, and so are not under the same constraints.”
I don’t really agree. The public perception of the stance of a political party comes from an amalgam of the statements and views of that party’s members. Ed Miliband has been very careful to avoid being seen as the voice of the looter and the loser. But some of his party members have been less careful. Their comments have been seized upon by their right-wing opponents – amongst whom these days are many Lib Dems, of course – as demonstrating what Labour really think.
It’s the same for the Lib Dems. It is not only the leadership who are listened to.
Look at what happened to Ken Clarke. He was making great strides with liberalisation of sentencing policy. Then he overstepped the mark with some comments about rape which most listeners found far too relaxed. That, sadly, undermined his credibility and his ability to make valid changes to policy. Lib Dems be warned.
“Lib Dems be warned.”
Too late, Tom Brake has made some very foolish comments about two clowns who actively tried to incite and organise riots in Cheshire. According to Brake, a four-year sentence (for an offence which carries a maximum of ten) is far too harsh. As usual, we’re getting tacit suggestions that because the offences were committed on-line, we should somehow just treat it all as a bit of a laugh.
Actually I MAY have done Tom Brake a disservice. Though the BBC report is written so as to suggest a link between the Cheshire sentences and Tom Brake’s comments, looking again at the quotes from Brake it’s not clear that he was referring specifically to them, so I’m not sure.
Stuart, I think you were right first time, but concerning some different BBC-reported comments of Tom Brake’s.
Mr Brake told the BBC’s Newsnight that some of those convicted had received sentences which would have been different if they had committed the same crime the day before the riots.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14553330
If Tom is suggesting that that is improper (and it’s not totally clear that he is – he may merely have been making a factually correct observation) then I have to say that I think he is mistaken.
I think it can be perfectly proper for crimes committed in the context of a riot to be punished more severely than those that weren’t.
@Stuart Mitchell
I’m not sure we disagree.
I said: “Locking people up for the sake of it is a bad idea.”
You said: “Yes, but what about locking people up for rioting and looting?”
I agree with Simon Shaw that it’s not unreasonable for judges to be more severe in the context of a riot than they would be for the same offense outside that context. So I’m not opposed to locking people up for rioting, nor for somewhat more severe sentences for those who opportunistically took advantage of that riot to steal.
However, I agree with Tim Leunig that judges should consider leniency for those who own up to their crime of their own accord, and who return the goods.
There may be more to the case of Natasha Reid than any of us are aware. It’s possible she saw herself on television, and thought it was only a matter of time before she would be identified. Or that someone else threatened to report her if she didn’t hand herself in. And it may be that, from the way she presented herself in court, it was clear she didn’t appreciate the seriousness of what she had done. So I’d rely on the judges who should have the fuller information.
Politicians being politicians, some will use this to make political capital by trying to sound tougher on crime than anyone else. Tabloids being tabloids, they will get into a bidding war in trying to outrage their readers about the venal nature of anyone involved in looting. But I hope the justice system will be more objective, and willing to use discretion.
And I agree with you in liking Nick Clegg’s statement: “As a liberal, I see violence and disorder of this kind as an attack on liberty, on the freedom for individuals to live and trade in peace in their own communities.”
I’d question the wisdom of Tom Brake’s recent comments. This is not a time for MPs to make statements that can be misrepresented as a defence of rioting. But I don’t think ordinary members of the party like Tim and myself should be inhibited about saying what we think. We may be misunderstood, as I’m afraid has happened in this thread, but that’s not going to negate the value of open debate.
I have found an alternative press reference (The Times) which makes me most definitely disagree with (some of) what Tom Brake says:
Tom Brake, the Lib Dem MP who chairs the party’s backbench committee on home affairs, said: “Sentencing must be proportionate and consistent.
“Those guilty of serious offences during the rioting should serve long terms, but those guilty of petty offences, particularly first-time offenders or where guilt was admitted at an early stage should be treated similarly to those who committed the same type of offence a day before the riots.”
I am convinced he is wrong when he says: “first-time offenders or where guilt was admitted at an early stage should be treated similarly to those who committed the same type of offence a day before the riots.”
You get these problems when things happen on your watch, but I think throwing the book at a kid for taking a pack of chewing gum is inherently ridiculous. And I’m far from convinced that starting a face book campaign that singularly failed to instigate looting. riots and civil disobedience even deserves a sentence let alone a stiff one, no matter how good it looks to the mob
whilst I might generally consider myself a social liberal, I also feel that the defence of negative liberty is very important.
@Glenn
“You get these problems when things happen on your watch” – I don’t understand what that means.
“And I’m far from convinced that starting a face book campaign that singularly failed to instigate looting. riots and civil disobedience even deserves a sentence” – Would you have taken a different view if it had instigated a riot etc? If so, why? Is this what “mens rea” is all about?
“Would you have taken a different view if it had instigated a riot etc?”
Quite probably. Despite my previous comments, balance has to work both ways around. Four years would be fine for someone who actually got a riot started, but if you treat a silly joker who is only mouthing off ineffectually at nobody in just the same way, then it’s the law that ends up looking like a joke. Which is not what you want to achieve with sentencing that should be exemplary but also rational.
Simon;
Yes. I would have taken a different view if the face book campaign had led to a riot or they had been found with a stock pile of petrol bombs or something. As it stands. I don’t think you should imprison people for saying stupid things on a social network full of people saying stupid things. I also take this view on allegations of supporting and promoting terrorism. Until bomb equipment or financial support for terrorist acts is proven. then all you have is evidence of people with nasty ideas. I’m not sure that this should form the basis of a court case or prison sentence.
Obviously. it’s difficult because there is the possibility that a crime was intended, but I think ultimately you have to accept that good crime prevention doesn’t necessarily need to lead to sentencing.