Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 694 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:47 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
BertyBasset wrote:
Stu set this up yesterday :

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-sm ... ity#/story

That's a nice thing isn't it ?


That sort of thing sits uncomfortably with me. Mainly, because it appears to forward the notion that there are some criminal acts that are acceptable under certain circumstances (leading to the not unreasonable proposition of "Is it a crime to draw lots to kill and eat your shipmate if you are adrift at sea?"), and that can then become certain rules for certain people and you've moved the goalposts around for some not others.

The publicity he has garnered has been a success, at least.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:52 
User avatar
Ticket to Ride World Champion

Joined: 18th Apr, 2008
Posts: 11843
Grim... wrote:
Fear not, your ruthless moderators are on the case!

But we're not going to do anything ;)

Wouldn't expect or want you to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:54 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
MaliA wrote:
That sort of thing sits uncomfortably with me. Mainly, because it appears to forward the notion that there are some criminal acts that are acceptable under certain circumstances


I'd say it's a given that some criminal acts are acceptable under certain circumstances, the statute books are plagued by what are clearly bad laws that I don't believe people have any particular obligation to obey 'just because it says so'.

In fact, the lives of normal people are only as comfortable as they are these days, and we only enjoy the rights that we do, because the generations before us openly and necessarily violated the laws of the time.

Unlawful protest and/or behaviour is a must sometimes.

In this woman's case I'd say she didn't do anything wrong in stealing 75p's worth of Mars bars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:57 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Hearthly wrote:
MaliA wrote:
That sort of thing sits uncomfortably with me. Mainly, because it appears to forward the notion that there are some criminal acts that are acceptable under certain circumstances


I'd say it's a given that some criminal acts are acceptable under certain circumstances, the statute books are plagued by what are clearly bad laws that I don't believe people have any particular obligation to obey 'just because it says so'.

In fact, the lives of normal people are only as comfortable as they are these days, and we only enjoy the rights that we do, because the generations before us openly and necessarily violated the laws of the time.

Unlawful protest and/or behaviour is a must sometimes.

In this woman's case I'd say she didn't do anything wrong in stealing 75p's worth of Mars bars.


Where would you draw the line? Both in value of goods pilfered, and circumstances. £5 as you're waiting for payday? £10 just until the end of the month?

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:02 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
MaliA wrote:
BertyBasset wrote:
Stu set this up yesterday :

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-sm ... ity#/story

That's a nice thing isn't it ?


That sort of thing sits uncomfortably with me.

I'm sure it does. You can afford to sit and ponder on it from a purely academic point of view. Others are not so lucky.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:09 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
MaliA wrote:
Where would you draw the line? Both in value of goods pilfered, and circumstances. £5 as you're waiting for payday? £10 just until the end of the month?


I think it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, which is sort of what we have judges and magistrates for, really.

In this case there was a desperate and hungry human being who stole a small amount of chocolate so she had something to eat.

In an ideal world the case would have been dismissed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:59 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Personally I think there are circumstances where theft is entirely morally justified, as indeed on this occasion. There must be an asymptote whereby a differential between have and have not, in a civilised society cannot be exceeded, otherwise rule of law - an abstract construct requiring and dependent on universal buy in afterall - must break down. Revolutions happen for a reason and history shows many of these have been necessary, and justified.

This woman has to eat. If you take away completely all her income and therefore access to any resources what are her options left to feed herself? Prostitution? Begging in the street? Theft? To my mind it is absurd to use any sanction, for any reason, that is tantamount to giving someone precisely no choice but to commit crime to survive; it is nothing less than a create-a-crime incitement on the part of the State.

Some years ago, the cops rigged up a flash car, deliberately left all the doors open and parked it under surveillance in rough parts of town, like some 'steal me' advert. The people they nicked got off though because the magistrate ruled create-a-crime was itself unlawful, rightly so.

All things considered this woman's actions were very moderate IMO, and the convicting court a bunch of inhuman, unthinking and impractical dicks. As for Stu, fair play to him as I've said directly on his blog, and have donated.

There are red lines here and they've surely been crossed.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:04 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
Good post Cavey, and I also learned a new word - asymptote!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:09 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Hearthly wrote:
Good post Cavey, and I also learned a new word - asymptote!


Hey man, I have my uses! Once an engineer always an engineer. :)

Serious matter, though, makes you think and start to really question everything, really.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 15:01 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Hearthly wrote:
In an ideal world the case would have been dismissed.

Your ideal world has low standards ;)

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 15:45 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
He said it was necessary, not sufficient.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 23:03 

Joined: 15th Nov, 2008
Posts: 484
..........................................

_________________
Bye.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:51 
Awesome
User avatar
Yes

Joined: 6th Apr, 2008
Posts: 12240
Why did she get sanctioned?

_________________
Always proof read carefully in case you any words out


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:01 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
Mr Russell wrote:
Why did she get sanctioned?


Shoplifting

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:59 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
The good Reverend, doing God's work: http://m.bathchronicle.co.uk/Mars-Bar/s ... story.html

I think it IS a great thing, and if you gave a knack for drumming up support and publicity, this is one way of putting those skills to good use.

Yes, nobody has mentioned why her benefits were sanctioned, and I think there are probably bits of this story missing in the presentation, but there's no good reason why anyone should go hungry in 2015, in the UK, and there have been some ridiculous examples of benefits sanctioning before now.

It does say that the woman was given food bank vouchers at least, but she went whilst it was shut. No good for her in terms of food for then and there, but it's at least something that she should have had access for food, so hopefully not too widespread an occurrence :(

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:11 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Mimi wrote:
Yes, nobody has mentioned why her benefits were sanctioned, and I think there are probably bits of this story missing in the presentation, but there's no good reason why anyone should go hungry in 2015, in the UK, and there have been some ridiculous examples of benefits sanctioning before now.
There are endless reports in the media of benefits sanctioning for the most bullshit of reasons: http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/ There's an interview here with an alleged mole who claims the target-driven culture imposes harsh targets on the Job Centre staff for quotas of sanctions. The inhumanity of it all appals me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:20 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
Achilles wrote:
I suppose it's just a esoteric topic on a thread until it happens to a friend or family member - then, and only then, it will become a real issue to you.


A similar monetary situation and struggle to eat and cope has been part of the life of someone who is a good friend to many of us on here; someone many of us know personally. They didn't steal, no, and eventually managed with the help of food donations and a couple of forum peeps taking them out shopping when they were able to make contact, but whilst waiting for a problem processing a crisis loan they never had food for, I think, six days.

So not so esoteric, and nobody said it wasn't a real problem, but that shouldn't stop discussion.

I understand MaliA's uncomfortableness to some degree; I think for some people not knowing all the facts (why the sanction, how long had she had the food bank vouchers, why couldn't she attend when it was open? Is it her first shoplifting offence or 300th?) will obscure the facts for some. Others can look straight beyond this to the eventual outcome and back to the problem source.

I think it's a good cause. I hope that the money is put to good use both for this woman and in supporting food banks as stated. More pressingly, that we still have cases of people unable to eat for days is something that needs highlighting, and if this brings it to press attention on any level then in that manner, at least, it has achieved a great thing.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:26 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Yes, nobody has mentioned why her benefits were sanctioned, and I think there are probably bits of this story missing in the presentation, but there's no good reason why anyone should go hungry in 2015, in the UK, and there have been some ridiculous examples of benefits sanctioning before now.
There are endless reports in the media of benefits sanctioning for the most bullshit of reasons: http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/ There's an interview here with an alleged mole who claims the target-driven culture imposes harsh targets on the Job Centre staff for quotas of sanctions. The inhumanity of it all appals me.

Yes, those were the ridiculous examples I was speaking of. The problem is that so much is process rather than person-driven. With just some common sense and compassion so many ridiculous sanctions could and should be avoided, but that would take common sense and compassion, and the new system doesn't seem to allow for things that fall outside of the heat little labelled boxes of the banal.

I wonder if it isn't so ridiculous a case in this example, however, as surely the media reports and subsequent campaign would have very much highlighted that? At least, I hope they would have, if just to bring that element of it to attention, too.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:50 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 23:33 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
MaliA wrote:
Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry.

They do not despise it but it 'sits uncomfortably' with them.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:13 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Future Warrior wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry.

They do not despise it but it 'sits uncomfortably' with them.


Dob't get me wrong, I think the fine was way too high and draconian. And bwnwgits anctopns are sonwwhat arbitary.I feel sympathy for the woman who felt that the only chance of food was to steal. Despite this, I feel that there is a danger of implicitly condoning "stealing because you are hungry". If that is considered acceptable, then the lines have to be redrawn. Who is it then acceptable to steal from? How hungry do you have to be? It is this part I am uncomfortable with.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:47 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
MaliA wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry.

They do not despise it but it 'sits uncomfortably' with them.


Dob't get me wrong, I think the fine was way too high and draconian. And bwnwgits anctopns are sonwwhat arbitary.I feel sympathy for the woman who felt that the only chance of food was to steal. Despite this, I feel that there is a danger of implicitly condoning "stealing because you are hungry". If that is considered acceptable, then the lines have to be redrawn. Who is it then acceptable to steal from? How hungry do you have to be? It is this part I am uncomfortable with.


I think I can see what you mean. Maybe it is discomfort with the situation, rather them an the help that this woman has recurred, and could perhaps be tackled by an amendment to the law that does indeed re-draw the line to say where absolute hunger is proven then theft to nourish and stay alive, within the bounds of a reasonable amount of food for the situation, will be overlooked and the circumstances that have lead to this be enquires into to prevent re-occurrence.

If this were down to the defendant not using the provisions attributed to them (food vouchers misappropriated, food bank or meal provisions not attended due to misbehaviour, etc) then this would be taken into account into the negative, also.

I'm not sure that would work, simply because again you are asking people to use common sense and reason rather than assigning situations and people to neat little boxes, but it would allow for the real situation of someone in dire need stealing for sustainance.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:54 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
I tell you what could work:

The police who arrested her could have let her go with a caution. It's 75p. SEVENTY FIVE PENCE.

How many minor offences are dealt with by caution where the costs of prosecution are disproportionate to the offence being committed? A shit ton. Statistically speaking, that is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:11 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
Saturnalian wrote:
I tell you what could work:

The police who arrested her could have let her go with a caution. It's 75p. SEVENTY FIVE PENCE.

How many minor offences are dealt with by caution where the costs of prosecution are disproportionate to the offence being committed? A shit ton. Statistically speaking, that is.

Absolutely, but we're not sure of how things like this work and the situation: whether it was her first offence or 100th, whether there is anything other than the theft that would have weighed against her judgement. As with most news stories there may be other circumstances not given that provide more context, and it may be that these have either a hard and fast law that this must be prosecuted against or that she was on a 'one more offence and...' From previous problems.

There must be more to the story (as in why were her benefits sanctioned in the first place) but we don't know the background. So yes, I think most would agree with you, but the courts may differ in approach due to other considerations we are not party to.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:21 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Saturnalian wrote:
I tell you what could work:

The police who arrested her could have let her go with a caution. It's 75p. SEVENTY FIVE PENCE.

How many minor offences are dealt with by caution where the costs of prosecution are disproportionate to the offence being committed? A shit ton. Statistically speaking, that is.


It's a crime, she should be charged for it, in my view. However, I think the courts have the leeway to then not levy a punishment on her as a result. Of course you're then into the area of wondering how much public expense is worthwhile for a 75p crime.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:25 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Mimi wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry.

They do not despise it but it 'sits uncomfortably' with them.


Dob't get me wrong, I think the fine was way too high and draconian. And bwnwgits anctopns are sonwwhat arbitary.I feel sympathy for the woman who felt that the only chance of food was to steal. Despite this, I feel that there is a danger of implicitly condoning "stealing because you are hungry". If that is considered acceptable, then the lines have to be redrawn. Who is it then acceptable to steal from? How hungry do you have to be? It is this part I am uncomfortable with.


I think I can see what you mean. Maybe it is discomfort with the situation, rather them an the help that this woman has recurred, and could perhaps be tackled by an amendment to the law that does indeed re-draw the line to say where absolute hunger is proven then theft to nourish and stay alive, within the bounds of a reasonable amount of food for the situation, will be overlooked and the circumstances that have lead to this be enquires into to prevent re-occurrence.

If this were down to the defendant not using the provisions attributed to them (food vouchers misappropriated, food bank or meal provisions not attended due to misbehaviour, etc) then this would be taken into account into the negative, also.

I'm not sure that would work, simply because again you are asking people to use common sense and reason rather than assigning situations and people to neat little boxes, but it would allow for the real situation of someone in dire need stealing for sustainance.


I think "starving - needed food" should be used to mitigate the offence, not as a defence. It is still a crime that needs some punitive action albeit at the lower end if the scale.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:30 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
As to comments about Court discretion from Meems & Cras, no. Once it is at court the mags have no discretion over whether to punish at all (if found guilty or pleaded guilty) or the minimum punishment handed down (I think it was in the original article the specifics of the minimum fine), so no, you're both wrong that the courts can somehow magic these cases away upon hearing all the circumstances. The courts would simply say "that's nice. Fine X amount payable in 21 days or whatever." It should never have got that far in the first place. Someone either at the police and/or at the CPS (maybe being led by whichever store wanted her prosecuted "to the full extent of the law" as they often put in their shops) thought that it would be a valuable exercise in pissing away tax payers money and clogging the criminal system with this petty bullshit when there are already 80+ courts closing (thanks Tories!) and massive delays of months to hear cases.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:33 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Saturnalian wrote:
Someone either at the police and/or at the CPS (maybe being led by whichever store wanted her prosecuted "to the full extent of the law" as they often put in their shops) thought that it would be a valuable exercise in pissing away tax payers money and clogging the criminal system with this petty bullshit when there are already 80+ courts closing (thanks Tories!) and massive delays of months to hear cases.

Clearly the real lesson here is the CPS has too much money. Swingeing cuts for all!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:38 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Saturnalian wrote:
As to comments about Court discretion from Meems & Cras, no. Once it is at court the mags have no discretion over whether to punish at all (if found guilty or pleaded guilty) or the minimum punishment handed down (I think it was in the original article the specifics of the minimum fine), so no, you're both wrong that the courts can somehow magic these cases away upon hearing all the circumstances. The courts would simply say "that's nice. Fine X amount payable in 21 days or whatever." It should never have got that far in the first place. Someone either at the police and/or at the CPS (maybe being led by whichever store wanted her prosecuted "to the full extent of the law" as they often put in their shops) thought that it would be a valuable exercise in pissing away tax payers money and clogging the criminal system with this petty bullshit when there are already 80+ courts closing (thanks Tories!) and massive delays of months to hear cases.


That's annoying. I didn't think we had mandatory minimums for stuff like that.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:45 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
U
Saturnalian wrote:
As to comments about Court discretion from Meems & Cras, no. Once it is at court the mags have no discretion over whether to punish at all (if found guilty or pleaded guilty) or the minimum punishment handed down (I think it was in the original article the specifics of the minimum fine), so no, you're both wrong that the courts can somehow magic these cases away upon hearing all the circumstances. The courts would simply say "that's nice. Fine X amount payable in 21 days or whatever." It should never have got that far in the first place. Someone either at the police and/or at the CPS (maybe being led by whichever store wanted her prosecuted "to the full extent of the law" as they often put in their shops) thought that it would be a valuable exercise in pissing away tax payers money and clogging the criminal system with this petty bullshit when there are already 80+ courts closing (thanks Tories!) and massive delays of months to hear cases.


I didn't suggest that the courts could magic away fines(?)

What I said was that I was t sure if there was any discretion around the case that could have been levied or if there were prior circumstances, and not at specifically court level anyway: this could be at police, CPS or court level where it may be applicable either in issuing the punishment or deciding to press charges, wherever. Again, though, she might be the town's most wanted shoplifter for all we know*, and this might have been her last chance as far as police, etc were concerned.

*I'm not suggesting that she is a serial offender, but again there will be so much background we are unaware of that we aren't really in a position to say whether the fine is correct in totality if, earlier that day, the same person had stolen a hairdryer, or was known for handling stolen goods, etc.

If the report stated it was her first offence, etc, it would seem massively disproportionate to me, but who knows? I don't.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:47 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
They've got tariffs for all the offences. Do this get between X & Y and pay A, B & C.

I'm amused that the victim in this case got a £20 victim surcharge. Probably due to all the inconvenience of prosecuting someone for stealing some mars bars. Tch.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:00 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
Louisa Sewell, 32, Comberton Road, Kidderminster

Louise Sewell, 32, Comberton Road, Kidderminster

Not conclusive that it is the same person, no. And I still disagree with the fine received if this woman was genuinely so hungry that she simply needed to eat (for which we have her word), but really I do understand that sometimes prosecutors, police, courts etc have access to information above what we have, such as prior cases and convictions, such as the information as to why this woman's benefits were sanctioned in the first place, as well as many other things.

In my own conclusion:
1) I don't think this case should have gone to court.
2) But I accept that I really don't know the whole story and there may have ben an obligation o take it to court due to previous offences.
3) I also acknowledge that we don't know the background of why the woman was in this position (why her benefits were sanctioned).
4) We only have the press reports which will pick and choose facts for a story, obviously.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 13:01 
Awesome
User avatar
Yes

Joined: 6th Apr, 2008
Posts: 12240
Maybe Stu is being so nice to her because she was stealing the Mars Bars to make his famous sandwich.

_________________
Always proof read carefully in case you any words out


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 13:25 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
I had no idea that you could even buy four Mars bars for 75p. I thought that they cost about that much each, now.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 13:36 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
It's probably one of those pound shop type deals where they're all a bit smaller than the proper size ones.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 13:39 
User avatar
Unpossible!

Joined: 27th Jun, 2008
Posts: 38439
Also, Heron Foods.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 13:44 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
DavPaz wrote:
Also, Heron Foods.


Nah, they prefer fish.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 13:54 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
markg wrote:
It's probably one of those pound shop type deals where they're all a bit smaller than the proper size ones.

Yes, that's probably very much part of the price point, still quite impressive, though.

I've not heard of Heron Foods, but I assume they are a bit like that Farmfoods place. I think we've been in there twice to get milk. The same group of little lads were in there both times, openly stealing. The second time they were shoving an entire massive frozen turkey into a giant rucksack. The turkey was bigger than the lad carrying it, like some strange Dickensian parody. The staff didn't care, though.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 13:58 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
I've always bemoaned that chocolate bars have been getting smaller over the ears and then I heard some guy at some institution (I can't remember which) who was bragging about how they had successfully managed to reduce portion sizes over the years. So now you know it was that shit who was responsible for the smaller sized everything at a greater cost. It's like the fat tax has already been implemented.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 14:05 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Saturnalian wrote:
I've always bemoaned that chocolate bars have been getting smaller over the ears and then I heard some guy at some institution (I can't remember which) who was bragging about how they had successfully managed to reduce portion sizes over the years. So now you know it was that shit who was responsible for the smaller sized everything at a greater cost. It's like the fat tax has already been implemented.


It is called value engineering .

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 14:14 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
This morning on the radio it was called a diabetic epidemic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 14:41 
User avatar
Master of dodgy spelling....

Joined: 25th Sep, 2008
Posts: 22533
Location: shropshire, uk
Saturnalian wrote:
This morning on the radio it was called a diabetic epidemic.


Yes we are contagious.

_________________
MetalAngel wrote:
Kovacs: From 'unresponsive' to 'kebab' in 3.5 seconds


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:13 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Saturnalian wrote:
I tell you what could work:

The police who arrested her could have let her go with a caution. It's 75p. SEVENTY FIVE PENCE.

How many minor offences are dealt with by caution where the costs of prosecution are disproportionate to the offence being committed? A shit ton. Statistically speaking, that is.


MEANWHILE IN BRADFORD

Quote:
although we have clear CCTV footage, the police come back and say the value of the products taken is not enough for them to take it any further.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:05 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
I wonder if there'd be any legal ramifications by, on the back of the publicity garnered by that story, the shop published the CCTV footage online (specifically Facebook) of all the incidents of theft by these kids?

Local residents would surely recognise them and the news get back to the parents (especially as people hate takes of police inaction), but that might invite more trouble from the parents themselves, depending on what kind of people they are. And I'm not sure what legal issues there might be in releasing CCTV footage, especially of minors. Hmm...

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 17:29 
User avatar
Prince of Fops

Joined: 14th May, 2009
Posts: 4296
15k now.

And one feels the Independent doesn't realise he's not a real reverend.

Independent

Quote:
The Reverend Stuart Campbell, who lives over 90 miles away in Bath, has set up an Indiegogo fundraising page as a “small gesture of solidarity” to help her pay the fines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 21:39 
Excellent Member

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 334
Findus Fop wrote:
15k now.

And one feels the Independent doesn't realise he's not a real reverend.

Independent

Quote:
The Reverend Stuart Campbell, who lives over 90 miles away in Bath, has set up an Indiegogo fundraising page as a “small gesture of solidarity” to help her pay the fines.



He's a "church leader" apparently :

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pe ... ed-6256306


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 22:12 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
Hahahahahaha!

HAHAHAHA!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 22:13 
User avatar

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 25549
Someone should give the papers links to his other words of inspiration, godly as they are.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 13:23 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
BertyBasset wrote:
Stu set this up yesterday :

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-sm ... ity#/story

That's a nice thing isn't it ?

Ha!

A nice thing would have been paying the money himself. But no, get the daft nationalist cunts to pay for it and he doesn't have to put a penny in and gets all the credit anyway. Genius! More money for his own mars bars. What a saint.

_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes, really, it's just some are too right on to admit it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Being Nice about Rev Stu thread
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 23:07 

Joined: 15th Nov, 2008
Posts: 484
..........................................

_________________
Bye.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 694 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Columbo, Kern and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen. RIP, MrC.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.