Sunday, 29 May 2011

The Man With No Name…

Magistrates yesterday refused to name and shame a serial teenage immigrant thief – because it could be “harmful” to him.
Are they worried about retribution from the public? Vigilantes?
The 15-year-old Romanian from a family living on benefits has been locked up six times in the past for repeated thieving while posing as a beggar, taking money from victims at cashpoints.
Manchester magistrates locked him up for a seventh time after hearing of eight new offences, including stealing a family’s Christmas present money.

But when asked by the media to name him so that potential future victims can spot him, magistrates refused because “it was not in the public interest” and applied a gagging order.
So, as a result, all teenage Romanians (or Romanian-looking youths) will now be suspect!

Brilliant idea, mags! That’ll foster community harmony a treat, eh…?
Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who this week used Parliamentary privilege to get round an injunction shielding soccer star Ryan Giggs’ extra-marital affair, expressed his fury at another breach of the public’s right to know.

Mr Hemming said: “It is usually a good idea to protect the identities of young offenders because it may help to encourage them back on the straight and narrow.

“But in this case it looks like he is someone who does not want to change his ways and clearly people need to be warned about who he is and what he looks like.

“It is a case of protecting the innocent members of the public so that they do not fall victim to similar crimes at his hands in the future.”
As expected, the local community isn’t too chuffed:
Residents in the city’s Longsight and Levenshulme districts, where the boy has repeatedly struck, demanded he be named. Builder Aaron Daniels, 42, said: “Surely his picture should be published so we can recognise him when he is released and be aware of his scam?”
You’d think, but he has more rights than you…

Including a right to your money:
The boy showed no emotion as victim statements were read out, interpreted by a translator
*sigh*
His father, who is given £460-a-week in benefits, was also in court.
For support? Or on a related charge?
The press asked magistrates to lift reporting restrictions.

But chairman of the bench David McFarland said it was not “in the public interest”.

He added: “We feel it would also be harmful to this young man if any rehabilitation becomes necessary.”
What do they mean, ‘becomes necessary’? Isn’t it necessary (albeit unlikely) now?

Even the defence couldn’t come up with any creative excuses for this one (or felt she needn’t bother, what with the mags falling all over themselves to excuse him for her):
Gillian Kennaugh, defending, admitted the boy had a “horrendous record”.
And there’s little chance of him changing his ways, is there..?

19 comments:

Tattyfalarr said...

Good ole Name N Shame. What the courts fail to do local gossips and the likes of facebook can easily ensure.
...
Don't expect the state to take care of you. Do it yourself in the true meaning of Big Society ;)

Trooper Thompson said...

Can't we just sling the lot of them out?

No, I know. Just imagining for a moment this was a sovereign and independent country again... (sigh)

Captain Haddock said...

This country really is fucked up beyond belief ..

Doc Trough said...

Sort it out Grieve ffs!

Shinar's Basket Case said...

Justice has not only to be done but SEEN to be done. There should be no secrecy...beyond the very rare occasion that National Security truly demands it etc.

You accuse someone of a crime then you should be named, no matter what the accusation and if they are found guilty then they should be publically identified.


Although i fail to see what amount of benefits someone gets has to do with anything, unless you're a Daily Fail reading, armchair xenophobe, fat ginger, cycling health nazi.

allcoppedout said...

Not surprising this story comes from Greater Manchester where magistrates haven't learned much since Peterloo. The way through these problems would be to let individuals who suffer these families sue the authorities for compensation and have them housed in trailers outside magistrate, ACPO and 'Shoesmith' homes.
It's an old problem as I saw similar on the 'Racecourse' estate in Sale more than 30 years ago.

My Bulgarian neighbours both work and probably net only the same as his 'father'. I'd be proud if their kids were mine.

Pavlov's Cat said...

So, as a result, all teenage Romanians (or Romanian-looking youths) will now be suspect!

well actually for most ...

Shinar's Basket Case said...

Can someone please tell me what a Romanian Teenager looks like and how they differ in appearance from a HARDWORKING BRITISH teenager? By what signs might I know them? The lack of Buckfast or WKD bottle in their foreign-johnny hands? The lack of baseball cap?


Google Image link appreciated.

Anonymous said...

£460/wk - £24k P/a tax free?

Christ why does he even need to steal - his dad would need a 33k job to be better off - guess how many unskilled Romanians are earning that either here or there..?

Paul said...

You accuse someone of a crime then you should be named, no matter what the accusation and if they are found guilty then they should be publically identified.

O…K. So if you're the victim and you get named straightaway but the vastly more powerful (say, I don't know, a criminal gang, or a group of thugs, or a rapist who has powerful familial influence in the locality) accused gets to keep his identity secret unless he is convicted then what do you think will happen?


No… witness intimidation? No… intimidation of the victim's family? No violence or threats of violence?

Would you like to think this through and come back a bit later?

Shinar's Basket Case said...

"No… witness intimidation? No… intimidation of the victim's family? No violence or threats of violence?"

Oh you mean all those things that don't happen now?

Maybe they'd happen more often under an open system of judgement, maybe not, but thanks to human nature they are part of the downside of any justice system. Always have been and always will be.

Try studying some history; it can help you not to make a tit of yourself on the internet.

Paul said...

No, it would be a green light to all sorts of abuses. I can imagine some people feeling that threatened in some areas that they'd be forced out of town - and not necessarily by friends of the accused - if they'd be publicly named. There are a lot of scummy people about.

Both parties should get anonymity in court cases until their conclusion. People who lie or perjure themselves should get the book thrown at them.

Bobo said...

"......repeated thieving while posing as a beggar, taking money from victims at cashpoints."

So he "took" money from 'victims at cashpoints'? Was that a Simpsons-esque "Yoinks!" ,pounce, and flee from a comically bewildered citizen who a second before had been counting out wads of greenbacks a step or two from the ATM?
Or were threats and/or violence involved?
It does make a difference,you know, but only from the victim's perspective.
And thats never the issue, is it?

blueknight said...

Probably the sort of 'Romanian' that has a dark skin/hair. cough -Roma- cough cough

Angry Exile said...

If the victim has anonymity then the accused probably should have it too - Julia's growing collection of false rape accusations shows the need for it. On the other hand if there's no concern about naming the victim(s) then there should be any about naming the accused either. Equality before the law, folks. It used to be an ideal Britain had.

JuliaM said...

"What the courts fail to do local gossips and the likes of facebook can easily ensure."

And then face charges for 'stalking'. Win/win for the police figures!

"My Bulgarian neighbours both work and probably net only the same as his 'father'."

That certainly is an incredible sum in benefits isn't it?

"Both parties should get anonymity in court cases until their conclusion. People who lie or perjure themselves should get the book thrown at them."

The first would be turning our system of justice on its head, and why, since it's worked perfectly up until the last 30 or so years?

The fact that the second is now a rarity might tell you why the last 30 years have been so different...

"Equality before the law, folks. It used to be an ideal Britain had."

Aha! That's one of the main changes in the last 30 years, isn't it?

James Higham said...

If we knew [generally] the mindset of some of the Eastern Europeans [and I speak as one who was over there], many people here would be shocked. And why wouldn't they transfer that to their new land of milk and honey [for them, not for us]?

Anonymous said...

The EU and multiculturalism.
The gifts that just keep on giving.
Or taking, in fact.

@SBC
"Although i fail to see what amount of benefits someone gets has to do with anything..."

That is because you're an idiot. We have ample supply of home grown leeches without recourse to their importation. Perhaps the benefits comment is a little too close to home for you ?

Mark said...

“We feel it would also be harmful to this young man if any rehabilitation becomes necessary.”

WTF ?

In a country with a functioning immigration system, any post custody 'rehabilitation' would be undertaken by the Romanian authorities, and not here at UK taxpayer expense. So the downside of identifying this noxious little scrote in the UK press simply wouldn't arise.

Thank you magistrate McFarland for confirming what most readers of this blog know already; that our immigration controls are a joke- especially when it comes to dealing with foreign criminals.