Woman Prosecuted For Golliwog Toy In Window

[Si Hunt]

A woman has been charged with racially aggravated harassment after a neighbour complained about a golliwog displayed in her window.

Jena Mason, 65, will appear before Lowestoft magistrates on Tuesday following the alleged incident in August, Suffolk police confirmed.

According to reports, Mrs Mason, of College Lane, Worlingham, was arrested after her black neighbour Rosemarie O'Donnell complained about the doll being displayed in her window.

"We have had a complaint from a member of the public, we have investigated it and both the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and ourselves have agreed there is enough to prosecute," a police spokeswoman said.

Thoughts?

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

Thoughts?

Not enough information to make an informed comment really. As the article stands we have no idea if it was put there deliberately or if she was asked to remove it and refused to comply before being arrested. Nor do we have any information about the relationship between the woman and her neighbour.

[Lissa]

Doing a bit of digging it seems the two families are involved in a planning dispute that's got a bit nasty. Both live in million pound houses that are sufficiently far from each other for one toy in one window to be visible only if you were visiting the property or looking very closely at it.

As far as I know it isn't a crime to be a bit racist. If this woman did deliberately put it in her window as a jab at her neighbour that doesn't make it racially motivated harassment or whatever the charge is. They're all grown ups and one happened to do something a bit silly, the other blew it out of all proportion because they want something in return. Drop the planning objection and I'll drop the racism claim. That sort of thing.

It's all a bit pathetic but that's what happens when you give petty, feuding neighbours a little bit of amunition.

[Si Hunt]

I'd have put a white skinned doll in my window. That would have showed her.

Si.

[Jon Masters]

Not quite the same story, but another heavy handed judge ?

A juror who was detained after he pretended to be sick so that he could go to a West End musical has said it was a "very stupid thing to do".

Matthew Banks, 19, from Staffordshire, was sentenced to 14 days in a young offenders institution after a judge found him to be in contempt of court.
He went to see Chicago in London despite telling court staff he was ill.
After being freed on Friday five days into the sentence, the student said: "I thought I would just get a fine."
The trial at Manchester Crown Court was halted for a day as other jurors were sent home because of Banks' absence.
Speaking to BBC Radio 5 live's Victoria Derbyshire, Banks, from Rugeley, said: "It was a very stupid thing to do - I genuinely did not believe I would put off the trial.
"I had already served two weeks and I was on my last day of jury service."

Banks, who is studying French at Manchester University, said he had been given a ticket for the musical as a Christmas present, adding: "There was a lot of people I didn't want to let down."
"I was just told that the judge might want to speak to me before the case restarted, then I was taken straight up to the dock and remanded in custody”

The student went to watch the musical with his mother Debbie Ennis, 49, who had no idea he had skipped jury service for the assault case trial.
He added: "Many of my fellow jurors had spoken about a case they had been on where the juror had had to leave and it carried on with 11 so I thought that by calling in sick it would carry on without me.
"I didn't think it would cause such a disturbance as it did.
"I didn't enjoy the day, especially when I heard that the case had to be postponed."

Banks' lie was uncovered when an employee from the court phoned his home and was told by his partner that he was in London.
He was in a coffee shop in London with his mother when he received a call from the court.
Banks said he had no idea he would end up in custody.
"When I was told to go to court I was just told that the judge might want to speak to me before the case restarted, then I was taken straight up to the dock and remanded in custody," he added.
"I spoke to a barrister who said he was probably just flexing his legal muscles and I should get a fine."

Sentencing him on Monday, Judge Martin Rudland said lying to court officials for such a frivolous reason was a serious offence.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said offenders serving a 14-day sentence were released after seven days and this could be brought forward if the release date fell on a weekend or bank holiday.

The week-long trial, which Banks had been sitting on, later continued in his absence with the remaining 11 jurors reaching a verdict, Judicial Communications Office officials said.

Mrs Ennis said the family was now looking at appealing against his conviction as it could damage her son's future job prospects.

I was initially drawn to the case because he's from my old home town, but I really have no sympathy with him whatsoever. If the case had collapsed because of his actions , what would the victims have felt.

And the last sentence really makes my blood boil - what, you don't want people to know your son is the sort who would skive off an important task for the day so he could go for a jolly in London ? Watch his pathetic little video interview where he complains about having to be locked up with murderers and such like.

Birching's too good for him

[Si Hunt]

I quite agree Jon. The words "I thought I would just get a fine" say it all. When the anticipated punishment is so lenient that the guy is happy to risk it to see a musical, he's virtually admitting it's not harsh enough.

Our court of law is a serious business, not to mention the money it would have cost the taxpayer to re-arrange the trial. A message needed to be sent out.

Si.

[SiHart]

Serves him bloody well right!

[Matthew T]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Prison should be a last resort for repeat and serious criminals, not a place to send a 19 year old boy for a minor misdemenour over Christmas, and possibly ruin his life in the process.

And I don't think someone who's 19 has the life experience or maturity to sit on a jury either, as this case would seem to prove.

[Awesome Wells]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Prison should be a last resort for repeat and serious criminals, not a place to send a 19 year old boy for a minor misdemenour over Christmas, and possibly ruin his life in the process.

And I don't think someone who's 19 has the life experience or maturity to sit on a jury either, as this case would seem to prove.

+1

The guy in question is clearly a bit of an arse, but sending him to chokey is massively disproportionate to what he did.

[Paul Monk]

Agree with Matt and Dave. Way over the top!

[Jason Thompson]

sending him to chokey is massively disproportionate to what he did.

What he did was risk undermining an entire criminal trial because he couldn't be arsed to live up to his responsibilities and wanted to go out and enjoy himself. He lied about his reasons for not turning up on top of that. I don't think a few days in jail is disproportionate at all.

Would you be saying the same thing if the trail had been of a child murderer who got away scot-free because juror absenteeism caused the trial to collapse?

He's an adult, and as such he needs to deal in adult responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is serving on a jury when he is called to do so, in support of our entire legal system. Whether he goes to jail or not, he now has a criminal record for contempt of court, and that is solely his own fault. The only person who screwed up his future is him.

[Jason Thompson]

a 19 year old boy

If he's 19 he's a man, not a boy.

And I don't think someone who's 19 has the life experience or maturity to sit on a jury either, as this case would seem to prove.

Some do, some don't. All know what their responsibilities are. At 18 he is either going to go to university or else find a job, both of which require commitment to the work involved. Being called to jury service is another responsibility, and he should meet that as much as any other. OK, he might not enjoy it, but that's what being an adult involves.

[Antony Cox]

And I don't think someone who's 19 has the life experience or maturity to sit on a jury either, as this case would seem to prove.

I got 'called up' a few weeks after my 18th birthday and did my duty, and I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I'm not suggesting that I was already a citizen of the universe at that point, but I did my bit and I like to think brought something to the party.

Incidentally, I got called up again a few years back back couldn't do it due to work commitments.

[Mike Saville]

No sympathy for the oaf. I agree totally with Jason. He made it clear he knew he'd get a fine when considering the offence- so he needed to be given something bigger. Trials costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands have collapsed over irresponsible jurors- it's not a 'minor offence'. Giving him a mere fine would give the signal to others that if they've got plenty of money they can skip jury duty and pay a token sum. Message sent, loud and clear.