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

 

 

11 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.

It was that I don't think people are angry with the situation because they feel the judge didn't follow the guidelines, more that the guidelines permit a non-custodial sentence for such a serious crime, and that the judge opted to impose such lenient sentences even allowing for any of the mitigating factors

The judge will have had other options open to him within the guidlines and, after all, the Attorney General has the power to review a sentence if it's consider too lenient for exactly this kind of circumstance

12 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.

Just call me Wesley bro.

2 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

It was that I don't think people are angry with the situation because they feel the judge didn't follow the guidelines, more that the guidelines permit a non-custodial sentence for such a serious crime, and that the judge opted to impose such lenient sentences even allowing for any of the mitigating factors

The judge will have had other options open to him within the guidlines and, after all, the Attorney General has the power to review a sentence if it's consider too lenient for exactly this kind of circumstance

Yes they do but only in exceptional circumstances.

The judge outlined in his explanation of his thinking as to what they were.

You are absolutely correct in that there is the legal remedy to increase the sentence if the Attorney General believes the trial judge had been to lenient in the sentencing he arrived at.

I'm no legal expert in criminal law but I wonder that there may be another dimension as to why at least two of the children were not given youth custody -

I've not got the time to research this so I've used AI - so take it with a degree of caution

Q - Can you be sentenced in the uk for a crime if you aren't able to understand your actions

In the UK, you cannot receive a traditional criminal sentence (such as a prison term) if you are legally unable to understand your actions at the time of the offense, as you cannot form the required intent. Instead, the legal system will deal with your case under specific mental health provisions.

The law handles this situation in two primary ways:

1. Legal Insanity (The M'Naghten Rules)

Not applicable in this instance.

2. Unfitness to Plead

This applies to your mental capability during the court process rather than at the time of the crime. If a medical assessment proves you cannot understand the charges, follow the trial, or instruct a lawyer, you will be found "unfit to plead". [1, 2]

• The court will hold a "trial of the facts" instead of a normal criminal trial.

• If the court finds you committed the physical act of the crime, you are not given a standard sentence.

• Disposals include mandatory or discretionary hospital orders, supervision orders, or an acquittal

The following is the bit that I think maybe relevant to this case

What if you are fit to plead, but have reduced mental capacity?

If your mental state or disorder impaired your judgment but you were still legally responsible, this acts as strong mitigation during sentencing. Courts have broad sentencing powers and may impose a hospital order instead of prison, or order a hybrid arrangement where you receive medical treatment before serving the remainder of a custodial sentence

I'm just speculating really but the judge put heavy emphasis on at least two of the boys intelligence limitations

Just a thought I had.

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

The second defendant, N, was found by experts to have an IQ in the bottom 1% compared with his contemporaries. He had both ADHD and "extreme neurological impairment" which meant he could not cope with ordinary schooling.

His mother had described him as being more like an eight-year-old boy.

"I am quite sure that N's culpability was reduced as result of his profound impairments," Judge Rowland said.

"His understanding of what went on must have been far more limited than a 14 year old operating at a level without his deficits."

The third and youngest boy, E, was found by a psychologist to have "very low intellectual capacity" with limited understanding of consent.

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.

Just now, Sluffy said:

Yes they do but only in exceptional circumstances.

The judge outlined in his explanation of his thinking as to what they were.

You are absolutely correct in that there is the legal remedy to increase the sentence if the Attorney General believes the trial judge had been to lenient in the sentencing he arrived at.

I'm no legal expert in criminal law but I wonder that there may be another dimension as to why at least two of the children were not given youth custody -

I've not got the time to research this so I've used AI - so take it with a degree of caution

Q - Can you be sentenced in the uk for a crime if you aren't able to understand your actions

In the UK, you cannot receive a traditional criminal sentence (such as a prison term) if you are legally unable to understand your actions at the time of the offense, as you cannot form the required intent. Instead, the legal system will deal with your case under specific mental health provisions.

The law handles this situation in two primary ways:

1. Legal Insanity (The M'Naghten Rules)

Not applicable in this instance.

2. Unfitness to Plead

This applies to your mental capability during the court process rather than at the time of the crime. If a medical assessment proves you cannot understand the charges, follow the trial, or instruct a lawyer, you will be found "unfit to plead". [1, 2]

• The court will hold a "trial of the facts" instead of a normal criminal trial.

• If the court finds you committed the physical act of the crime, you are not given a standard sentence.

• Disposals include mandatory or discretionary hospital orders, supervision orders, or an acquittal

The following is the bit that I think maybe relevant to this case

What if you are fit to plead, but have reduced mental capacity?

If your mental state or disorder impaired your judgment but you were still legally responsible, this acts as strong mitigation during sentencing. Courts have broad sentencing powers and may impose a hospital order instead of prison, or order a hybrid arrangement where you receive medical treatment before serving the remainder of a custodial sentence

I'm just speculating really but the judge put heavy emphasis on at least two of the boys intelligence limitations

Just a thought I had.

Were you in Early Doors mithering the bar staff about roadworks?

Brevity is a virtue.

2 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Yes they do but only in exceptional circumstances.

The judge outlined in his explanation of his thinking as to what they were.

You are absolutely correct in that there is the legal remedy to increase the sentence if the Attorney General believes the trial judge had been to lenient in the sentencing he arrived at.

I'm no legal expert in criminal law but I wonder that there may be another dimension as to why at least two of the children were not given youth custody -

I've not got the time to research this so I've used AI - so take it with a degree of caution

Q - Can you be sentenced in the uk for a crime if you aren't able to understand your actions

In the UK, you cannot receive a traditional criminal sentence (such as a prison term) if you are legally unable to understand your actions at the time of the offense, as you cannot form the required intent. Instead, the legal system will deal with your case under specific mental health provisions.

The law handles this situation in two primary ways:

1. Legal Insanity (The M'Naghten Rules)

Not applicable in this instance.

2. Unfitness to Plead

This applies to your mental capability during the court process rather than at the time of the crime. If a medical assessment proves you cannot understand the charges, follow the trial, or instruct a lawyer, you will be found "unfit to plead". [1, 2]

• The court will hold a "trial of the facts" instead of a normal criminal trial.

• If the court finds you committed the physical act of the crime, you are not given a standard sentence.

• Disposals include mandatory or discretionary hospital orders, supervision orders, or an acquittal

The following is the bit that I think maybe relevant to this case

What if you are fit to plead, but have reduced mental capacity?

If your mental state or disorder impaired your judgment but you were still legally responsible, this acts as strong mitigation during sentencing. Courts have broad sentencing powers and may impose a hospital order instead of prison, or order a hybrid arrangement where you receive medical treatment before serving the remainder of a custodial sentence

I'm just speculating really but the judge put heavy emphasis on at least two of the boys intelligence limitations

Just a thought I had.

Yet he said if the knife had been used (forensics said it was used to Cut off clothes) he would have given them a custodial sentence. So their mental capacity clearly wasn’t the issue for not jailing them,

36 minutes ago, royal white said:

Yet he said if the knife had been used (forensics said it was used to Cut off clothes) he would have given them a custodial sentence. So their mental capacity clearly wasn’t the issue for not jailing them,

You are beginning to act somewhat needy now.

I've already answered you about the knife.

13 hours ago, Sluffy said:

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.

And I've already informed you that I'm not interested in playing anymore.

Thank you for your time.

18 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

You are beginning to act somewhat needy now.

I've already answered you about the knife.

And I've already informed you that I'm not interested in playing anymore.

Thank you for your time.

I’m Not bothered what you think about the knife. This is what the judge said "If someone had used a knife in that way, my decision would be very different."

So your previous point about not being able to jail them because they’re simple doesn’t quite wash.

16 minutes ago, royal white said:

I’m Not bothered what you think about the knife. This is what the judge said "If someone had used a knife in that way, my decision would be very different."

So your previous point about not being able to jail them because they’re simple doesn’t quite wash.

3 hours ago, Sluffy said:

I've made myself clear.

You're not stupid you fully understand what I've said.

You are obviously trying entice me into an endless debate with you.

I'm not interested thank you.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

21 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

  43 minutes ago, royal white said:

I’m Not bothered what you think about the knife. This is what the judge said "If someone had used a knife in that way, my decision would be very different."

  3 hours ago, Sluffy said:

I've made myself clear.

You’re to easy

1 minute ago, royal white said:

You’re to easy

And it seems that you are so very needy, which surprises me.

A for the knife, there was no knife!

IN THE CROWN COURT AT SOUTHAMPTON

BEFORE: HIS HONOUR JUDGE ROWLAND

Sentencing Remarks Hearing date: 21 May 2026

L is the victim.

Now, L alleged she was forced at knife point to go with the boys at the outset and then participate in nonconsensual sexual activity. I am sure this did not happen. I am sure that even if a knife was present it formed no part in any alleged kidnap and then forced sexual activity in any of the phases. There was no kidnap. At the very most, an implement might have been used to cut her leggings. Even then there was unchallenged evidence that L was seen with torn leggings at a time before the alleged offences, which resulted in convictions for some.

Of note, the older two boys were sent for trial additionally in relation to allegations of kidnap, making a threat to kill and for J possession of a knife. Perhaps not surprisingly, these allegations did not find their way onto any of the many indictments in this case and in making these findings as to L’s account, I really do no more than reflect the uncontroverted evidence at trial, which it seems to me I am best placed to assess. Clearly, if there had been a knife in evidence during sexual offending in any of the phases, and it was attributable to a particular defendant, the outcome of this hearing would be very different for that defendant.

20 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

And it seems that you are so very needy, which surprises me.

A for the knife, there was no knife!

IN THE CROWN COURT AT SOUTHAMPTON

BEFORE: HIS HONOUR JUDGE ROWLAND

Sentencing Remarks Hearing date: 21 May 2026

L is the victim.

Now, L alleged she was forced at knife point to go with the boys at the outset and then participate in nonconsensual sexual activity. I am sure this did not happen. I am sure that even if a knife was present it formed no part in any alleged kidnap and then forced sexual activity in any of the phases. There was no kidnap. At the very most, an implement might have been used to cut her leggings. Even then there was unchallenged evidence that L was seen with torn leggings at a time before the alleged offences, which resulted in convictions for some.

Of note, the older two boys were sent for trial additionally in relation to allegations of kidnap, making a threat to kill and for J possession of a knife. Perhaps not surprisingly, these allegations did not find their way onto any of the many indictments in this case and in making these findings as to L’s account, I really do no more than reflect the uncontroverted evidence at trial, which it seems to me I am best placed to assess. Clearly, if there had been a knife in evidence during sexual offending in any of the phases, and it was attributable to a particular defendant, the outcome of this hearing would be very different for that defendant.

I thought you was going? Now you’ve come back to prove my point 😆😆😆

3 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Yes they do but only in exceptional circumstances.

The judge outlined in his explanation of his thinking as to what they were.

You are absolutely correct in that there is the legal remedy to increase the sentence if the Attorney General believes the trial judge had been to lenient in the sentencing he arrived at.

I'm no legal expert in criminal law but I wonder that there may be another dimension as to why at least two of the children were not given youth custody -

I've not got the time to research this so I've used AI - so take it with a degree of caution

Q - Can you be sentenced in the uk for a crime if you aren't able to understand your actions

In the UK, you cannot receive a traditional criminal sentence (such as a prison term) if you are legally unable to understand your actions at the time of the offense, as you cannot form the required intent. Instead, the legal system will deal with your case under specific mental health provisions.

The law handles this situation in two primary ways:

1. Legal ? (The M'Naghten Rules)

Not applicable in this instance.

2. Unfitness to Plead

This applies to your mental capability during the court process rather than at the time of the crime. If a medical assessment proves you cannot understand the charges, follow the trial, or instruct a lawyer, you will be found "unfit to plead". [1, 2]

• The court will hold a "trial of the facts" instead of a normal criminal trial.

• If the court finds you committed the physical act of the crime, you are not given a standard sentence.

• Disposals include mandatory or discretionary hospital orders, supervision orders, or an acquittal

The following is the bit that I think maybe relevant to this case

What if you are fit to plead, but have reduced mental capacity?

If your mental state or disorder impaired your judgment but you were still legally responsible, this acts as strong mitigation during sentencing. Courts have broad sentencing powers and may impose a hospital order instead of prison, or order a hybrid arrangement where you receive medical treatment before serving the remainder of a custodial sentence

I'm just speculating really but the judge put heavy emphasis on at least two of the boys intelligence limitations

Just a thought I had.

Here we go again, another post full of quotes no-one wants to read, why do you keep posting this shite? It doesn't make you look clever or more knowledgeable than anyone else

I popped back to disprove your point actually.

Although to be fair to you, the way it is worded about the knife is very misleading.

It is only when I took a deeper dive to satisfy my curiosity that it became clear what the judge actually meant.

I suspect the word 'not' was missed out in his speech the the accused...

L said she was made to go with you because someone showed her a knife. I listened very carefully at the trial to what people said. I looked the at CCTV very carefully so I am sure that that did not happen. If someone did have a knife it was only used to cut her trousers and I am sure that they were NOT made to do sexual things because she was shown the knife. If someone had used a knife in that way, my decision today would be different.

It makes more sense to me with a 'not' in there.

Interestingly (well to me anyway) the Prosecution barrister asked to correct the judge at the end of his speech...

His Honour Judge Rowland: Now is anything else that I need to say while the young people are in court?

Miss Mittell: Perhaps not. It, it may be that I, because Your Honour has read it out, written it down slightly wrong. There are a couple of Your Honour’s observations that I would like to clarify --

His Honour Judge Rowland: Yes.

Miss Mittell: But I am happy to deal with that after --

His Honour Judge Rowland: Certainly. Certainly do that.

Miss Mittell: The boys have left, if, if Your Honour’s content.

His Honour Judge Rowland: Yeah, certainly we can do that.

The court records do not show what conversation took place.

15 minutes ago, athywhite1958 said:

Here we go again, another post full of quotes no-one wants to read, why do you keep posting this shite? It doesn't make you look clever or more knowledgeable than anyone else

Because Royal White and myself are having a grown up conversation on a topic that has dominated this thread for the last few days.

The topic is about the rape of two underage girls and why the judge did not issue a custody orders on the 3 males who raped them

If you consider the rape of two children and no custodial sentences being issued 'shit' then I feel sorry for you as you clearly lack basic compassion.

For once in your life stop being so grumpy just because other folks are engaged in conversation on something YOU don't want to be bothered with.

Did you visit this thread to enrich us with your thoughts?

No I didn't think so.

Your opinion has been noted.

Happy now?

12 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I popped back to disprove your point actually.

Although to be fair to you, the way it is worded about the knife is very misleading.

It is only when I took a deeper dive to satisfy my curiosity that it became clear what the judge actually meant.

I suspect the word 'not' was missed out in his speech the the accused...

L said she was made to go with you because someone showed her a knife. I listened very carefully at the trial to what people said. I looked the at CCTV very carefully so I am sure that that did not happen. If someone did have a knife it was only used to cut her trousers and I am sure that they were NOT made to do sexual things because she was shown the knife. If someone had used a knife in that way, my decision today would be different.

It makes more sense to me with a 'not' in there.

Interestingly (well to me anyway) the Prosecution barrister asked to correct the judge at the end of his speech...

His Honour Judge Rowland: Now is anything else that I need to say while the young people are in court?

Miss Mittell: Perhaps not. It, it may be that I, because Your Honour has read it out, written it down slightly wrong. There are a couple of Your Honour’s observations that I would like to clarify --

His Honour Judge Rowland: Yes.

Miss Mittell: But I am happy to deal with that after --

His Honour Judge Rowland: Certainly. Certainly do that.

Miss Mittell: The boys have left, if, if Your Honour’s content.

His Honour Judge Rowland: Yeah, certainly we can do that.

The court records do not show what conversation took place.

Forensic evidence proves a sharp instrument was used to cut the girls clothes. Hmmmmmm I wonder what that could have been then?

Again I’ve not a clue where you’re going with all Of this. Your AI comment a few posts back says they couldn’t be jailed because they’re basically thick, yet the Judge said he would have jailed them if a knife was used. Total y contradicting your previous.

I Think that’s 5 posts you’ve come back with now 😆

I also warned that AI was unreliable.

The Judge states the leggings were seen to be torn BEFORE the rape took place and no evidence of a knife was used during the 'kidnap' or 'rape'- if you've got a issue with that then take it up with the judge, he's the one who has seen all the evidence.

I don't mind debating with anyone, I'm sure I will with you in the future but I see no benefit just to argue for the sake of it.

The judge made his decision on all he's seen and heard and explained in detail why he came to the sentencing decisions he had.

I've tried to bring his explanation of his sentencing decisions out into the open to aid a better understanding of them for everyone.

If you've taken it that as some sort of challenge to your debating skills, or how to keep a sucker hanging on, or whatever it is you are doing, then that's what you must do on here to derive some sort of self pleasure from.

It doesn't do it for me.

I can only repeat what is in the public court reports and as you seem to have knowledge of them too, then, I can't see how much further I can to help you other than to be someone for you to troll.

I don't need to seek any satisfaction or validation from what I post on here or anywhere else, however it seems to me that you do.

I'm sure you will find it elsewhere but not from me.

Six and out as they say.

8 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I also warned that AI was unreliable.

The Judge states the leggings were seen to be torn BEFORE the rape took place and no evidence of a knife was used during the 'kidnap' or 'rape'- if you've got a issue with that then take it up with the judge, he's the one who has seen all the evidence.

I don't mind debating with anyone, I'm sure I will with you in the future but I see no benefit just to argue for the sake of it.

The judge made his decision on all he's seen and heard and explained in detail why he came to the sentencing decisions he had.

I've tried to bring his explanation of his sentencing decisions out into the open to aid a better understanding of them for everyone.

If you've taken it that as some sort of challenge to your debating skills, or how to keep a sucker hanging on, or whatever it is you are doing, then that's what you must do on here to derive some sort of self pleasure from.

It doesn't do it for me.

I can only repeat what is in the public court reports and as you seem to have knowledge of them too, then, I can't see how much further I can to help you other than to be someone for you to troll.

I don't need to seek any satisfaction or validation from what I post on here or anywhere else, however it seems to me that you do.

I'm sure you will find it elsewhere but not from me.

Six and out as they say.

You should have saved yourself some time and stop blowing smoke up your own arse. The majority on here knew it or had an idea, basically you’ve written God knows how many essays telling people what they know, it doesn’t change anything people want to see jail terms for rapists something that could have been given in this case. Scum bags being allowed to cut about anonymously after raping school girls doesn’t do it for most folk though you seem to be fine with it, unless it’s your own daughter of course then you want the judge to jail them. Sick way of looking at things in my eyes. Each to their own like.

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by royal white

37 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I also warned that AI was unreliable.

The Judge states the leggings were seen to be torn BEFORE the rape took place and no evidence of a knife was used during the 'kidnap' or 'rape'- if you've got a issue with that then take it up with the judge, he's the one who has seen all the evidence.

I don't mind debating with anyone, I'm sure I will with you in the future but I see no benefit just to argue for the sake of it.

The judge made his decision on all he's seen and heard and explained in detail why he came to the sentencing decisions he had.

I've tried to bring his explanation of his sentencing decisions out into the open to aid a better understanding of them for everyone.

If you've taken it that as some sort of challenge to your debating skills, or how to keep a sucker hanging on, or whatever it is you are doing, then that's what you must do on here to derive some sort of self pleasure from.

It doesn't do it for me.

I can only repeat what is in the public court reports and as you seem to have knowledge of them too, then, I can't see how much further I can to help you other than to be someone for you to troll.

I don't need to seek any satisfaction or validation from what I post on here or anywhere else, however it seems to me that you do.

I'm sure you will find it elsewhere but not from me.

Six and out as they say.

19 minutes ago, royal white said:

You should have saved yourself some time and stop blowing smoke up your own arse. The majority on here knew it or had an idea, basically you’ve written God knows how many essays telling people what they know, it doesn’t change anything people want to see jail terms for rapists something that could have been given in this case. Scum bags being allowed to cut about anonymously after raping school girls doesn’t do it for most folk though you seem to be fine with it, unless it’s your own daughter of course then you want the judge to jail them. Sick way of looking at things in my eyes. Each to their own like.

FFS!!!.....Why don't you two just go get a room!! 🤣🤣

43 minutes ago, royal white said:

You should have saved yourself some time and stop blowing smoke up your own arse. The majority on here knew it or had an idea, basically you’ve written God knows how many essays telling people what they know, it doesn’t change anything people want to see jail terms for rapists something that could have been given in this case. Scum bags being allowed to cut about anonymously after raping school girls doesn’t do it for most folk though you seem to be fine with it, unless it’s your own daughter of course then you want the judge to jail them. Sick way of looking at things in my eyes. Each to their own like.

It's not a question of me being fine with it, it is a question of whether the judge ruled on the law correctly.

I wouldn't want anyone to be raped least of all a child.

There's a lot of things I don't like in life but there is always two sides to every story.

The sentence Review is pending, let's see the view of the judge's decision from the Attorney General.

I'm not sure that you will get your wish for all three of them to have their sentenced changed to custodial.

We shall see though.

27 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

It's not a question of me being fine with it, it is a question of whether the judge ruled on the law correctly.

I wouldn't want anyone to be raped least of all a child.

There's a lot of things I don't like in life but there is always two sides to every story.

The sentence Review is pending, let's see the view of the judge's decision from the Attorney General.

I'm not sure that you will get your wish for all three of them to have their sentenced changed to custodial.

We shall see though.

Again, there could be multiple outcomes, for some reason you’re not grasping this. The review may say it’s a fair sentence and that’s it done. If they were jailed I highly doubt there would be a review (unless some wet wipes complained that rapists going to Jail Is to harsh which wouldn’t surprise me) and the majority of people including the police involved in the case, the victims, their families, the PM and no doubt many millions of others would be happy (to some extent) at the sentence.

So Much for not being suckered into replying. Thats 6 now,

LinkedIn

British police in action. Look at the state of it | João...

British police in action. Look at the state of it | 318 comments on LinkedIn

This has just popped up on my linked in again. Anyone thinking DEI is a good thing for the police have a look at this and then have a rethink.

Another Islamic nutjob on the rampage in Belfast last night.

It’s a Dr carrying out a life saving amputation. These are the people needed over here

Edited 16 hours ago16 hr by royal white

12 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Were you in Early Doors mithering the bar staff about roadworks?

Do you like circuses?

1 hour ago, royal white said:

It’s a Dr carrying out a life saving amputation. These are the people needed over here

Fookin ell