Stu set this up yesterday :

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

That's a nice thing isn't it ?

Fear not, your ruthless moderators are on the case!

But we're not going to do anything

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.

That sort of thing sits uncomfortably with me.

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?

Good post Cavey, and I also learned a new word - asymptote!

In an ideal world the case would have been dismissed.

Why did she get sanctioned?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Also, Heron Foods.

It's probably one of those pound shop type deals where they're all a bit smaller than the proper size ones.

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.

This morning on the radio it was called a diabetic epidemic.

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.

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.

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.

15k now.

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

Independent

Stu set this up yesterday :

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

That's a nice thing isn't it ?