Glad to hear that Kathleen Jennings, the teenager who was prosecuted for putting her feet on the seat of a train, has been given an absolute discharge by Chester Magistrates’ Court. I don’t know about anyone else, but I do not want to live in a society where putting one’s feet on a train seat is enough to warrant a criminal record.
Yes, anti-social behaviour should not be tolerated, but in a civilised society, the punishment must be proportionate to the act. An on-the-spot penalty should have sufficed in this case, especially given that the defendant promptly took her feet off the seat and apologised when challenged.
We are right to be worried about the breakdown of law and order in Britain. Anti-social behaviour, left unchallenged, corrodes the substance of society. It is therefore right that it be challenged, but not, not at all, at great cost to our sense of fairness.
September 4th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Er, recently a paedophile walked away from court with community service, despite 24 counts of child molestation. He should have gone to prison.
This girl should never have been taken to court.
The Government should be focusing on solving all the UNSOLVED MURDERS recently reported in the press; and the number of these is up.
Why? because the police are bogged down in red tape and too busy arresting kids for putting their feet on seats.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Mountjoy, I agree with you.
In addition, it is easier to tackle otherwise law-abiding people than to tangle with the real criminals. The point has been made elsewhere that if the defendant in this case had been a foul-mouthed lout, ready to do violence, the train ‘enforcement officer’ would have looked the other way.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
We are right to be worried about the breakdown of law and order in Britain. Anti-social behaviour, left unchallenged, corrodes the substance of society. It is therefore right that it be challenged, but not like this, at the cost of common sense.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I think this was not a good example of behaviour I would expect from a Cub Scout Leader.
Having said that, I think she should have pleaded not guilty and have been found not guilty by the magistrates. “wilfully interfering with the comfort or convenience of other passengers”. I suspect that this was not her intent, and that she would have moved her feet had another passenger wished to sit there.
On the other hand, had a fellow passenger wished to sit there and asked her to remove her feet and she refused then she would have been guilty as charged.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
What a joke!
September 4th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
If we let people put their feet on train seats, the terrorists have already wo–
Aw, heck. I can’t even fake outrage over this.
September 5th, 2007 at 1:52 am
possibly a gimic - but maybe people who are anti social should have points on their licence. And i dont mean driving licence. Have been thinking for a while maybe adults should need a licence to drink or smoke or do other fun public activities - persistant abusers would then ooose that right - further abuses would leave to jailtime. That maybe a bit extreem but i think we need a better scale of fining/punishing people for minor infringemnts that lays somewhere between unconditional discharge and hard labour.
September 5th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Glad to hear common sense has prevailed in the end. Is this what we pay our taxes for ? Imagine how much this episode has cost! Not to mention, the suffering - and worry - this poor girl has gone through.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Yes, she should never have had to go to court, poor kid. What a waste of time and public money!
September 9th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Bel,
I never got this case. Where was the crime? I’ve looked through some of the press reports into the matter and the ones I have seen are not clear as to what precisely she was charged with.
Was the matter of feet on seats contrary to a bye law? Who ran this case? CPS? I really hope not as CPS do have guideines (including whether the matter is in the public interest) they are supposed to follow when considering prosecution.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Kris, the charge was something like ‘wilfully interfering with passengers’ enjoyment’. Like you, I wondered whether this was on the statute book anywhere, or some sort of local bye law.
I also wondered about the role of the CPS in this. It is all very well the train company making a case to the CPS, but it is up to the CPS to do its job properly.
September 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
So because she works with children she’s somehow a ’special’ case? Do the rules suddenly only apply to people we don’t like the look of? She KNEW what could happen if she put her dirty feet on the seats that we have to sit on and she should have been dealt with the same way as everyone else who has been caught. Why should she be excused just because she ‘works with children’?