6 coppers to take him down or 1 member of the public with his bike? 
 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Jol_BWFC said:

Royal White calls people a nonce on a daily basis, mainly when he’s losing a debate.

Being a nonce is worse than being called one.

Lying is an illness

3 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

See what I mean.

The judges reasoning is set out

The information on two tier policing is linked to...

And yet I'm the sole focus of attention.

It feels a bit like Trump going to war on Iran simply to take the attention away from the Epstein files.

Deflection

/dəˈflekSHən/

Deflection means making something change direction. In everyday conversations and psychology, it means avoiding blame or an uncomfortable topic by shifting the focus onto someone or something else

I replied to You about the judges decision. I said you (not meaning you but the people in charge) are basically giving one demographic the green light to do what they want. Many traveller kids will fall into the same category as the 3 recently in court. They now know raping girls will be a slap on the wrists. Do you think that’s right?

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by royal white

21 minutes ago, Jol_BWFC said:

Royal White calls people a nonce on a daily basis, mainly when he’s losing a debate.

Being a nonce is worse than being called one.

It wasn't him who used that word, and there was a claim of being called worse, so I was curious about what that would be

It was just an idle thought, though

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by Lt. Aldo Raine

4 minutes ago, royal white said:

Lying is an illness

I replied to You about the judges the decision. I said you (not meaning you but the people in charge) are basically giving one demographic the green light to do what they want. Many traveller kids will fall into the same category as the 3 recently in court. They now know raping girls will be a slap on the wrists. Do you think that’s right?

Thank you but that wasn't the question I asked was it?

I asked if the judges decision was right or wrong or was it because he was compelled to make it according to the sentencing guidelines and if so were they wrong.

I believe it to be the last option, which the judge implies himself in outlining his reasoning in arriving at the sentence.

It is not a matter of what you or I may think is right, the judge can only rule upon the law.

He cannot sentence anyone beyond what his guidelines state because if he did, they would be immediately released upon appeal.

Following this case there will no doubt be legislation changes and amendments to judges guidelines to more appropriately deal with such miscreants in the future.

To put it simply, there will be NO ONE, travellers kids, underage visitors off the rubber boats, or hooray Henry's from Harrow or Winchester, who will be given a 'green light' to rape other children and receive a 'slap on the wrist' when held to account.

You seem like an intelligent bloke who is clearly opinionated (that is not a bad thing btw), however you seem to be unenlightened as to how the system works?

If you are at all interested the link below is to a paper from the House of Commons Library, which outlines the three pillars of democracy, namely the executive (the governments), Parliament (the law makers) and the Judiciary (those who apply the law).

Each are independent from the other two and all have equal power.

The paper is somewhat academic but sets out how and why the three pillars (executive, Parliament, Judiciary) are needed for democracy to function as it has in the UK.

The Separation of Powers

SN06053.pdf

And isn't it irrelevant if I've kissed girls, or boys, or even your big fat backside, it's what is being said that should be the focus, and not (as it frequently is I find) who is saying it.

Toodle pip.

16 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Thank you but that wasn't the question I asked was it?

I asked if the judges decision was right or wrong or was it because he was compelled to make it according to the sentencing guidelines and if so were they wrong.

I believe it to be the last option, which the judge implies himself in outlining his reasoning in arriving at the sentence.

It is not a matter of what you or I may think is right, the judge can only rule upon the law.

He cannot sentence anyone beyond what his guidelines state because if he did, they would be immediately released upon appeal.

Following this case there will no doubt be legislation changes and amendments to judges guidelines to more appropriately deal with such miscreants in the future.

To put it simply, there will be NO ONE, travellers kids, underage visitors off the rubber boats, or hooray Henry's from Harrow or Winchester, who will be given a 'green light' to rape other children and receive a 'slap on the wrist' when held to account.

You seem like an intelligent bloke who is clearly opinionated (that is not a bad thing btw), however you seem to be unenlightened as to how the system works?

If you are at all interested the link below is to a paper from the House of Commons Library, which outlines the three pillars of democracy, namely the executive (the governments), Parliament (the law makers) and the Judiciary (those who apply the law).

Each are independent from the other two and all have equal power.

The paper is somewhat academic but sets out how and why the three pillars (executive, Parliament, Judiciary) are needed for democracy to function as it has in the UK.

The Separation of Powers

SN06053.pdf

And isn't it irrelevant if I've kissed girls, or boys, or even your big fat backside, it's what is being said that should be the focus, and not (as it frequently is I find) who is saying it.

Toodle pip.

I didn’t answer your question as I nodded off halfway through your post, I asked this question

“How many gypsy kids will fall into this category? If the sentence stays the same you’re pretty much giving them the green light to do as they like.”

Which I stand by. Now if the laws/guidelines do stay the same it’s pretty much a green light for kids with learning difficulties, ADHD (every other kid by the sounds of things these days) and anxiety (see previous)

Everybody on here knows there’s guidelines, following those guidelines could have resulted in those kids being sent to jail, like the victims I’m confident the majority on here would have preferred for them to get sent down, the judge, in his wisdom decided not to do that. This takes us back to the dozens of debates on here where judges have given out pathetic sentences.

You also need to stop thinking to much about yourself and what you think others may think of you on here.

All that aside, I’m curious as to how 3 gypsy kids have managed to get these medical diagnosis'. I know of a couple of families who’s kids are being assessed and it’s taking them years up to now, using the same Drs and teachers 🤷🏻

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by royal white

11 minutes ago, royal white said:

I didn’t answer your question as I nodded off halfway through your post, I asked this question

“How many gypsy kids will fall into this category? If the sentence stays the same you’re pretty much giving them the green light to do as they like.”

Which I stand by. Now if the laws/guidelines do stay the same it’s pretty much a green light for kids with learning difficulties, ADHD (every other kid by the sounds of things these days) and anxiety (see previous)

Everybody on here knows there’s guidelines, following those guidelines could have resulted in those kids being sent to jail, like the victims I’m confident the majority on here would have preferred for them to get sent down, the judge, in his wisdom decided not to do that. This takes us back to the dozens of debates on here where judges have given out pathetic sentences.

You also need to stop thinking to much about yourself and what you think others may think of you on here.

All that aside, I’m curious as to how 3 gypsy kids have managed to get these medical diagnosis'. I know of a couple of families who’s kids are being assessed and it’s taking them years up to now, using the same Drs and teachers 🤷🏻

No you are wrong.

The law will change.

It isn't the first time nor will it be the last when the law/sentencing guidelines haven't been robust enough to cover an unexpected criminal case.

The perpetrator can only be tried as per the law existing at the time, and legislation has always be subsequently updated to prevent the same thing happening in the future.

Forgive me for saying so but you are ignorant as to how the system works.

As for the sentence given, this is what the judge said about the guidelines...

On 05/06/2026 at 14:24, Sluffy said:

These factors, and others, convinced the judge that he could not detain the boys because the guidelines for sentencing children say that custody is a "last resort", with the priority being rehabilitation.

"The approach to sentencing should be individualistic and focused on the child or young person, as opposed to offence-focused," he said.

"For a child or young person the sentence should focus on rehabilitation where possible.

On 05/06/2026 at 14:24, Sluffy said:

The second phase - which has not been fully reported until now - saw the judge set out a lengthy and legally complex reasoning for the court record so that barristers could understand his thinking.

He told both the defence and the prosecution teams that the nature of the case meant that it was not comparable to previous incidents in which boys of around the same age had been placed in youth custody for sexual offences.

The facts of the Fordingbridge attacks - and the characteristics of the offenders - were "very different", he said.

The judge said that according to the evidence, and the jury's verdicts, both victims had initially consented to some sexual activity but their consent was later withdrawn, particularly after a phone was used to film.

The judge told the court that initial consent could not excuse away the rapes.

The judge also said that there had been "no violence or exploitation" but their crimes had been aggravated by the boys acting together and filming.

"I do not find there was planning in either part," he said.

The judge added that the lead two defendants, J and N, had already spent the equivalent of an 18-month and 16-month sentence, respectively, in detention in local authority accommodation or on curfew.

"That is a significant feature when determining whether an immediate custodial sentence must follow," the judge said

It is quite clear from the judges remarks that he believed that youth custody was not warranted under the judges guidelines because "it is not comparable to previous incidents in which boys of around the same age had been placed in youth custody for sexual offences" in that both girls had originally consented, that there had been no force used, it wasn't preplanned and because of the time they had already served in custody (implying that even if he did issue a youth custody order they wouldn't serve much, if any, of it).

Whether he got it right or not will depend on the review of his sentence but it certainly seems a logical assessment of the guidelines he talks about to me. namely his focus is on the child not the crime, he compares and contrasts the difference between this case and other similar cases leading to youth custody orders. and notes the time the two older boys have already been held in custody.

Just to make clear, he followed the guidelines as he saw them to be he didn't reject them as you seem to be saying and not send them to youth custody just because they were a bit dim (well very dim for two of them).

And fwiw I wouldn't have had a 6 year ban off here if I cared what people thought about me, or I of them.

I stood up for what was right, usually against the crowd and spoke the truth, that many didn't want to hear.

I wouldn't win any popularity contests and I dare say more than a few would be happy to see me get another six year ban as soon as possible.

I'm not here to make friends, it's the internet, it isn't real life, although many clearly seem to believe it is - just look at my welcome after 6 years away.

I post about stuff I know about or am interested in, I try to help people if I can.

And if it means anything to you (and it might?) my grandad served in the Royal Artillery, my father in the air force and my nephew is currently stationed in the Middle East.

As for myself, I would rather jaw-jaw than war-war.

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

No you are wrong.

The law will change.

It isn't the first time nor will it be the last when the law/sentencing guidelines haven't been robust enough to cover an unexpected criminal case.

The perpetrator can only be tried as per the law existing at the time, and legislation has always be subsequently updated to prevent the same thing happening in the future.

Forgive me for saying so but you are ignorant as to how the system works.

As for the sentence given, this is what the judge said about the guidelines...

It is quite clear from the judges remarks that he believed that youth custody was not warranted under the judges guidelines because "it is not comparable to previous incidents in which boys of around the same age had been placed in youth custody for sexual offences" in that both girls had originally consented, that there had been no force used, it wasn't preplanned and because of the time they had already served in custody (implying that even if he did issue a youth custody order they wouldn't serve much, if any, of it).

Whether he got it right or not will depend on the review of his sentence but it certainly seems a logical assessment of the guidelines he talks about to me. namely his focus is on the child not the crime, he compares and contrasts the difference between this case and other similar cases leading to youth custody orders. and notes the time the two older boys have already been held in custody.

Just to make clear, he followed the guidelines as he saw them to be he didn't reject them as you seem to be saying and not send them to youth custody just because they were a bit dim (well very dim for two of them).

And fwiw I wouldn't have had a 6 year ban off here if I cared what people thought about me, or I of them.

I stood up for what was right, usually against the crowd and spoke the truth, that many didn't want to hear.

I wouldn't win any popularity contests and I dare say more than a few would be happy to see me get another six year ban as soon as possible.

I'm not here to make friends, it's the internet, it isn't real life, although many clearly seem to believe it is - just look at my welcome after 6 years away.

I post about stuff I know about or am interested in, I try to help people if I can.

And if it means anything to you (and it might?) my grandad served in the Royal Artillery, my father in the air force and my nephew is currently stationed in the Middle East.

As for myself, I would rather jaw-jaw than war-war.

I don’t need your life story.

Both you and the judge have conveniently left out the knife part. If you was the judge would you have jailed them or not? You seem to Be backing his decision not to jail them, myself, the PM, the victims and their families and no doubt millions of others disagree.

Edited 6 hours ago6 hr by royal white

2 hours ago, Sluffy said:

As for myself, I would rather jaw-jaw

You don't say.

21 minutes ago, royal white said:

I don’t need your life story.

Both you and the judge have conveniently left out the knife part. If you was the judge would you have jailed them or not? You seem to Be backing his decision not to jail them, myself, the PM, the victims and their families and no doubt millions of others disagree.

Nor did I need your unwarranted 'advice' but out of basic courtesy to you having given it to me - and believing that you meant well by doing so, then the least I was compelled to do was to answer you, which I did.

And no, the judge did not leave out the 'knife part' - it wasn't relevant as the guidance he had to work to was to focus on the child doing the crime and not the crime itself.

I'm not a judge, nor have trained to be a judge, I wouldn't even want to be one, but if I was then I'd do exactly the same process as he did namely follow the guidelines on sentencing.

I'm not in a position to say if I would have sentenced them to be detained or not simply because I'm not qualified to judge and I don't have the full facts in front of me, in particular the professional behaviour and psychological profiles, their changes in behaviour and maturity whilst in custody, the advise from their childcare specialists and everything else that is standard fare for judges to base their decisions on.

The guidelines clearly places the child as the judges focus and not the crime.

The judge is the expert in these matters and would have dealt with similar cases many times before in his career, he is much better to judge the case (no pun intended) than you, me, Starmer, the victims and their families and millions of others.

If you want a somewhat similar example to this case, then maybe how many of those incensed at the killing of the three little girls in Southport believed it was an illegal immigrant that killed them because they were not in possession of the full facts before they made their minds up?

Make your judgement after the facts are known, not before, being the moral I'm trying to make here.

The rapes of these two little girls was shocking (I have a daughter myself).

No doubt if I was the father of one of the raped girls I would want to know why the scrotes were not locked away for life irrespective if they had any brain cells in their heads or not.

But that isn't what the judges guidelines direct the judges to do - no doubt because when the guidelines were written nobody envisaged children raping other children.

The Crown Court judge made his decision based on many years of experience, having the full facts and guidance in front of him and spoken to all the experts involved (both for and against the accused).

I would like to think I would have done exactly the same in his position.

Every Crown Court judge would.

Would we all have arrived at the same decision, I don't know, I like to think we would.

We will have to wait for the Attorney General, Lord Hermer KC, for his opinion of the sentence.

In political terms it is a no win for the country.

If the sentence is upheld (which would mean the judge interpreted the law and guidance correctly) then those uninformed to how these things work would say that judges aren't doing their jobs properly.

If the sentence is increased - and from a political perspective I'm sure Starmer is hoping it is - he appointed Hermer to his post - then again those uninformed to how these things work would say that judges aren't doing their jobs properly.

Either way more and more people start to lose faith in the judiciary, as well as the politicians and the police.

This is not good for democracy in the long term.

1 hour ago, bolty58 said:

You don't say.

m

This bird is a snipe.

Every time you post you remind me of it.

I can't think why?

Snipe

Verb: To attack a person, their character, or their work with unpleasant or mean-spirited remarks.

I don't think anyone at any stage hasn't understood that the sentencing guidelines gave the judge the option not to imprison the boys

3 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I don't think anyone at any stage hasn't understood that the sentencing guidelines gave the judge the option not to imprison the boys

Not entirely sure what you are saying with so many negatives in your sentence?

The guidance permits custodial sentences and none custodial sentences as shown in the judges reasoning as to what sentence he arrived at.

That was the reasons I posted up the judges reasoning in full originally, so everyone could understand (rather than jump to their own conclusions) as to why he arrived at the sentence he did.

2 hours ago, Sluffy said:

m

This bird is a snipe.

Every time you post you remind me of it.

I can't think why?

Snipe

Verb: To attack a person, their character, or their work with unpleasant or mean-spirited remarks.

This is as I imagine Bolty:

14 hours ago, royal white said:

That’s where you tend to go wrong on a lot of discussions, you just do a lot of assuming and then go into one.

I think a lot of us would have read your posts & just assumed you thought two tier policing was an issue.

I’ll hold my hands up on this one though. Glad we agree it’s not an issue.

3 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Not entirely sure what you are saying with so many negatives in your sentence?

The guidance permits custodial sentences and none custodial sentences as shown in the judges reasoning as to what sentence he arrived at.

That was the reasons I posted up the judges reasoning in full originally, so everyone could understand (rather than jump to their own conclusions) as to why he arrived at the sentence he did.

Finally...... a post that isnt Tolstoy-esqe!