Parents who were given overnight accommodation by a charity after taking their poorly baby to Bristol Children's Hospital...Set up a fundraiser for them? Did a sponsored run? Took in flowers and chocolates for the staff?
...stole most of the room's fixtures and fittings.I...
I just...
The couple, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, stole pillows, cushions, a duvet, towels, an alarm clock, a laundry basket, a bath mat, a soap dish and a toothbrush holder.*speechless*
Matthew Pitt, defending the father, explained that both defendants were "vulnerable".
"My client has learning difficulties and left a special needs school with no qualifications," he said.
"He has problems with reading and writing and finds it hard to communicate. He also has psychological problems and suffers with depression.
"The couple have three other children – all of whom have been adopted or fostered because of neglect.
"Their son being ill put them under a lot of stress and pressure, especially because they were driving back and forth between their home and the hospital in Bristol.
"They don't have an explanation for why they took the items.
"It was not for financial gain but they accept it was dishonest."Well, that's good of them, eh?
H/T: Dave Cank via email
Father 42 and mother 22, why are there often such age gaps in these kind of cases?
ReplyDeleteLiving on benefits and continuing to breed despite their offspring being taken off them for neglect. They shouldn't have been at the hospital visiting their latest burden on the state. They should have been in the hospital for compulsary sterilisation.
Why can't they be named? What possible legal reason can there be for that?
ReplyDeleteThey should be named and then placed in the pillory for 24 hours minimum.
They wouldn't have learning difficulties then, at least not with regard to consequences of crime. They would learn a valuable lesson.
Paul.
These are the sort of scum who give scum a bad name.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry single celled pond life - I compared these things to you!
Bunny
ReplyDeleteSingle celled pond life does actually have a place in the food chain. These two no.
You highlight these people who are not representative of anything. If the person that you are moaning about has learning difficulties, why are you presenting them as run of the mill people. After all, the items you list don't have much value.
ReplyDeleteGet a life Julia. Most people don't behave this way.
Sorry anonymous @ 11:40 but WRONG.
ReplyDeleteThese items do have value as I'm likely to have paid for them through taxes or charity or both.
As for the learning difficulties perhaps they need to learn some basic things. Like the consequences of unprotected sexual intercourse and the consequences of nicking things that don't belong to them.
@Paul
ReplyDeleteThey can't be named because it would identify the children. In general, if you wish to commit an offence it is best to either do it against your own children, in which case anonymity is often automatic, or to make an argument as to why it would be unfair to name you on account of it would damage your children. Normally with property crime - such as burglar Wayne Bishop - the family would be named, so if they aren't it says that either there is another case in the wings or the necessity of child protection has been raised. It also makes a difference if children have a different surname; there can be cases were the child is not named but the offender can be because although closely connected to them, this does not lead to identification e.g. the late Roger Florian Took.
In this case I suspect that social services are moving quickly to see if the children need to be fostered or adopted, in which case it is quite important to try to keep their identity out of the press as it may affect their chances of placement. We also don't know why the child was in hospital. There is more than one possible explanation for that.
Given the defence description of the male partner (father? the implication may not be the same as the reality) I'd expect the social workers to be all over this.
Please, please, please, why doesn't the state incentivise sterilisation of the hopelessly dependent or chronically dependent. A big flat screen telly for every tubal ligation, free Sky for every vas deferens tied off. It would be much cheaper long term in saving social worker salaries, prison places and disruption in the classroom. Sex may keep the couple happy whereas childcare definitely does not. Not to sterilise them perpetuates child neglect, abuse and social problems.
ReplyDeletePlease, please, please, why doesn't the state incentivise sterilisation of the hopelessly dependent or chronically dependent. A big flat screen telly for every tubal ligation, free Sky for every vas deferens tied off. It would be much cheaper long term in saving social worker salaries, prison places and disruption in the classroom. Sex may keep the couple happy whereas childcare definitely does not. Not to sterilise them perpetuates child neglect, abuse and social problems.
ReplyDeletePlease, please, please, why doesn't the state incentivise sterilisation of the hopelessly dependent or chronically dependent. A big flat screen telly for every tubal ligation, free Sky for every vas deferens tied off. It would be much cheaper long term in saving social worker salaries, prison places and disruption in the classroom. Sex may keep the couple happy whereas childcare definitely does not. Not to sterilise them perpetuates child neglect, abuse and social problems.
ReplyDeleteMore abuse of the English Language. "Learning Difficulties" is not the same as "Refusal To Learn". A 5 year old having trouble with the three Rs is not the same as a grown adult refusing to keep their hands off other people's stuff.
ReplyDeleteThey've clearly learned to milk every opportunity for gain that having a son still left in their custody gives them.
A sick son proved to be a twisted "Bonus Point".
Still, it's nice to see...in a triumph of Equality...that the Justice System is Inclusive. ;)
@ Anon
ReplyDeleteThe value of the goods is estimated at £200 but this is far short of what it would cost to replace them since this entails the labour of doing so and also reflects the wasted labour and materials in doing so the first time.
In the case of a charity, this means that somebody has to raise the money by doing something for it or seeking donations - again - then make the order, then go out and get the stuff, then put it back in place. All of this also has to be accounted for - and quite right too - but it imposes an administrative burden.
Sheets and bathmats are simple, soap dishes which may have been wrenched off the wall are not since you have to do the repair too.
In the meantime, the room may not be usuable by some other distraught parent so in addition to petty theft they have penalized a stranger who may now have to pay commercial rates for a room, the value of which varies with location. The lowest would be £30 if they have managed to get an exceptional deal from a budget hotel.
Your comment appears to be based on the idea that the magic fairies will replace it for free, so it's alright to nick stuff.
The error of this thinking is probably only cured by being burgled, at which point you will understand the real cost of replacing items greatly exceeds their retail price.
Worked example:
Put in new handgel
£2 gel + £3 labour = £5
Replace stolen handgel £5 (wasted gel) +£2 new gel +£3 more laboour = £10
Replacing stolen itmes costs much more than the bare price.
Can not see why they should not be named, their children are in care bar the 4 week old child who will not be harmed by naming the parents.
ReplyDeleteI always wonder about hearing about these "learning difficulties".
"originally told police that all the items belonged to him but finally pleaded guilty to theft at a court hearing on July 9"
So he knew he was in trouble, knew to lie, came up with a viable lie and then pleaded guilty when shown the proof 'fair cop guv'.
I used to go to speech therapy when I was a kid - will that help me out if I ever get in trouble ?
Suppose it's better than smashing up bus shelters.
ReplyDeleteNo wait ...
So he is vulnerable. Vulnerable to what exactly ?
ReplyDeleteI'm not in favour of sterilisation or shooting or any sort of genocide of the chavs as that's not the way to rebuild.
ReplyDeleteThe tragedy is that socialism has created these wasted lives and the double tragedy is that this didn't need to happen.
I'm afraid that the road to rebuilding self respect in people has got to be some sort of workfare. Many of these people could be better with better education and purposeful activity but instead the state prefers them idle.
A crunch is going to come and the welfare state is going to collapse and there are going to be a lot of people suddenly thrown in to a world they have been ill prepared by education or life experience for.
As a nation we desparately need to rebuild people's self respect.
Help the chronic doley's - give 'em some workfare.
(oh and to the lefties out there who are going to come back with a sneering arbeit mach frei well you can just fuck off)
"They should have been in the hospital for compulsary sterilisation."
ReplyDeleteI'm tempted to agree. I think LJH's suggestion is the way to go.
"Why can't they be named? What possible legal reason can there be for that?"
I think (and hope!) that WoaR's answer is the correct one. I hope it for the sake of this child.
"After all, the items you list don't have much value."
Oh, yes they do.
"So he is vulnerable. Vulnerable to what exactly ?"
'Vulnerable' is the new 'loveable rogue'..
"I'm afraid that the road to rebuilding self respect in people has got to be some sort of workfare."
The government's just closed Remploy. And, when you see the reasons, you can't blame 'em.
What could these people usefully do, that sending them to do it wouldn't cost the state more?
@ WOAR
ReplyDeleteI did understand, even as I posted the question, that it would be something to do with the 'cheeldrun' as to why there was no naming (of the parents). I realise that this comment may be now interpreted as callous and wish to state I have no desire to see the children punished for the actions of their parents and feel somewhat sorry for them. However....
Is it not too late for these children really? It's likely that their descent into similar patterns is guaranteed and that no prevention from 'naming' is likely to in turn prevent this.
Feeling 'sorry' all the time doesn't necessarily get anyone anywhere and besides - how disadvantaged would the children really be by naming their feckless parents? Chances are, it will all be forgotten (by the masses) within a week as the next sensation arrives. In fact by naming the family it should (if any real compassion exists) ensure understanding for the plight of the children - a plight best alleviated by complete punishment (including naming) of their parents. At the least the children would learn something from this - maybe.
With the greatest respect, your explanation sounded a tad Orwellian, at least to me. I'm weary of all these explanations. Sorry.
@LJH
There's a presumption that the underclass really don't like the task of having children in tow. They would rather just screw around but without consequence. Well that's as maybe, but in fact many of the underclass also now realise that children are the passport to idle riches via the benefit system. The irritation of having them around can be largely by-passed by the tactic of neglect, which may in fact then realise more money freely given. The irritations of children may be reluctantly borne for the (state) benefits it achieves.
Paul.