Meanwhile In England

[Cheese]

2 hours ago, Casino said:

you shouldve been a judge

its not too late

you either dont understand how they use sentencing guidelines or youre trying to wind folk up

whichever it is, youre better waiting for cheese as hes as daft as you

[royal white]

2 hours ago, Casino said:

you shouldve been a judge

its not too late

you either dont understand how they use sentencing guidelines or youre trying to wind folk up

whichever it is, youre better waiting for cheese as hes as daft as you

Obviously you do Judge cas. Tell the class about the sentencing guidelines. 
 

Im going off this. What are you using? 

A custodial sentence or youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance* or fostering* may be justified where one or more of the following factors apply

• Any penetrative activity involving coercion, exploitation or pressure
• Use or threats of violence against the victim or someone known to the victim
• Prolonged detention/sustained incident
• Severe psychological or physical harm caused to the victim

[London Wanderer]

2 hours ago, royal white said:

  utterly pointless.

 But like you say it’s pointless  🙄

Everything in the original post is true. For some reason you don’t want to accept that which is a bit bizarre 

Now you’re just making stuff up 😂 Where did I say that?

You’re a very black & white kinda guy, nuance & context isn’t your thing. So as usual, our discussions are a waste of time.

 That post misses out a whole load of important information and then goes on to attack the judge. You’ve got to get it right and know your stuff if you’re going to start telling a judge how to do their job. Unity News haven’t done that and they’ve ended up looking like muppets 👍

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Looking at that list: it seems sort of impossible for a rape not to meet those guidelines.

The third one you could make an argument for, but what is a prolonged incident anyway?

 

[royal white]

11 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Now you’re just making stuff up 😂 Where did I say that?

You’re a very black & white kinda guy, nuance & context isn’t your thing. So as usual, our discussions are a waste of time.

 That post misses out a whole load of important information and then goes on to attack the judge. You’ve got to get it right and know your stuff if you’re going to start telling a judge how to do their job. Unity News haven’t done that and they’ve ended up looking like muppets 👍

Oh right so you would be happy for them to be jailed, which they could have been but you continually back the judge.

You have also mentioned a couple of times about the guy the judge allowed to go on holiday not going to jail. Not quite sure what you’re on about there? 
 

it seems odd that you continue backing her, you didn’t seem happy that this Twitter page released her photo and put her at risk yet her photo and name has been released numerous times before by the MSM. 
 

At the end of the day, this nonce could have been jailed (even if it was for 1 or 2 years) The judge decided not to. I don’t agree with the judge yet for some bizarre reason you do. 

[Casino]

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Looking at that list: it seems sort of impossible for a rape not to meet those guidelines.

 

 

he wasnt found guilty of rape

am i missing something?

[Sweep]

5 minutes ago, Casino said:

he wasnt found guilty of rape

am i missing something?

No, but don't let that stop you ranting on about insufficient punishment 😉

[Not in Crawley]

1 minute ago, Sweep said:

No, but don't let that stop you ranting on about insufficient punishment 😉

This is a very odd thread, and that's saying something.

[MickyD]

2 minutes ago, Sweep said:

No, but don't let that stop you ranting on about insufficient punishment 😉

Are you mixing Casino with others? 

[Not in Crawley]

11 minutes ago, MickyD said:

Are you mixing Casino with others? 

I think he's saying it hasn't stopped others who don't know what they're talking about, so get stuck in.

[London Wanderer]

1 hour ago, royal white said:

Oh right so you would be happy for them to be jailed, which they could have been but you continually back the judge.

You have also mentioned a couple of times about the guy the judge allowed to go on holiday not going to jail. Not quite sure what you’re on about there? 
 

it seems odd that you continue backing her, you didn’t seem happy that this Twitter page released her photo and put her at risk yet her photo and name has been released numerous times before by the MSM. 
 

At the end of the day, this nonce could have been jailed (even if it was for 1 or 2 years) The judge decided not to. I don’t agree with the judge yet for some bizarre reason you do. 

We’ve been over this. Countless times.

She gave hefty sentences to the adult men,  other judges may not have gone that big. She quite clearly put the victim first.
 
It’s not that the media name her - it’s the way Unity News scapegoat her and miss out the crucial information. She’s already received threats because of misinformation around this case and the ‘holiday’ one. 
 

She’s a good track record of justice & handing out lengthy sentences to predators. She’s also done a lot of work calling out police delays to rape cases and how this affects the victims. But none of that fits Unity News narrative does it? 
 

Why are you so eager to defend them?
 

[royal white]

4 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

We’ve been over this. Countless times.

She gave hefty sentences to the adult men,  other judges may not have gone that big. She quite clearly put the victim first.
 
It’s not that the media name her - it’s the way Unity News scapegoat her and miss out the crucial information. She’s already received threats because of misinformation around this case and the ‘holiday’ one. 
 

She’s a good track record of justice & handing out lengthy sentences to predators. She’s also done a lot of work calling out police delays to rape cases and how this affects the victims. But none of that fits Unity News narrative does it? 
 

Why are you so eager to defend them?
 

I’ve said a few posts back. Ignore Unity News, apparently according to you they have an agenda. Anyway forget them. I posted a BBC link so let’s go off that. Is she getting threats because of the BBC link and their millions of followers or of UN and their 60k? 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

59 minutes ago, Casino said:

he wasnt found guilty of rape

am i missing something?

The bit I saw said "penetrative".

What does that mean- had a quick dabble, but pulled out?

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

4 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

The bit I saw said "penetrative".

What does that mean- had a quick dabble, but pulled out?

Penetration by another part of the body or an object

[London Wanderer]

13 minutes ago, royal white said:

I’ve said a few posts back. Ignore Unity News, apparently according to you they have an agenda. Anyway forget them. I posted a BBC link so let’s go off that. Is she getting threats because of the BBC link and their millions of followers or of UN and their 60k? 

Apparently? 😂 you don’t think they’ve got an agenda? 

I’d bet you my life savings it was from the followers of Unity News.

Just a wee look at their history and you’ll see they’re regularly peddling conspiracy theories & pseudoscience. 
 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 minute ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Penetration by another part of the body or an object

Which I can understand might not fit the exact definition of rape, but would still constitute a sexual assault.

If he was part of a group, then perhaps other things to consider. 

Which ever way you cut it, that still seems remarkably lenient.

[royal white]

9 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Apparently? 😂 you don’t think they’ve got an agenda? 

I’d bet you my life savings it was from the followers of Unity News.

Just a wee look at their history and you’ll see they’re regularly peddling conspiracy theories & pseudoscience. 
 

Yes let’s have that bet, I’m sure people have rang the judge and said I’ve just seen you on UN 🤦🏻
 

What is their Agenda? I have no idea. 
 

You keep going on about them when I said let’s go off the BBC link. 

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

14 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Which ever way you cut it, that still seems remarkably lenient.

It does

[royal white]

12 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

It does

You can’t say that, you will have people on here telling you to train up as a judge or you’re telling the judge she’s doing her job wrong. 
 

Edited March 5, 2024 by royal white

[Sweep]

1 hour ago, Not in Crawley said:

I think he's saying it hasn't stopped others who don't know what they're talking about, so get stuck in.

Indeed

[London Wanderer]

32 minutes ago, royal white said:

Yes let’s have that bet, I’m sure people have rang the judge and said I’ve just seen you on UN 🤦🏻
 

What is their Agenda? I have no idea. 
 

You keep going on about them when I said let’s go off the BBC link. 

Great, it's on. 

You changed your link when you realised yours was nonsense 😉 

Any story can be presented differently depending on the source. Surely you know that no ? 

Their agenda is to present the judge as someone who excuses sexual predators, with a track record of doing similar. It's very clear their focus is her. The reality behind the case and her history is quite the opposite, but they don't bother looking at that. Doesn't suit their agenda 👍

Nobody would have been surpised to see the lad receive some sort of prison sentence. There is no excuse for his actions. But he has to be treated very differently to the adults, who new exactly how vulnerable this girl was and how to groom her. They were sentenced accordingly and I'd happily see the law changed to life for cases like this. 

The lad in question was 15 at the time, the girl was 13. Therefore, the judge did not treat it as grooming and niether was he charged rape. Other cases of this nature have resulted in similar suspended sentences. 

[royal white]

2 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Great, it's on. 

You changed your link when you realised yours was nonsense 😉 

Any story can be presented differently depending on the source. Surely you know that no ? 

Their agenda is to present the judge as someone who excuses sexual predators, with a track record of doing similar. It's very clear their focus is her. The reality behind the case and her history is quite the opposite, but they don't bother looking at that. Doesn't suit their agenda 👍

Nobody would have been surpised to see the lad receive some sort of prison sentence. There is no excuse for his actions. But he has to be treated very differently to the adults, who new exactly how vulnerable this girl was and how to groom her. They were sentenced accordingly and I'd happily see the law changed to life for cases like this. 

The lad in question was 15 at the time, the girl was 13. Therefore, the judge did not treat it as grooming and niether was he charged rape. Other cases of this nature have resulted in similar suspended sentences. 

No I changed my link because as per usual you became obsessed with who posted it. My view is the same whichever link you use. 
 

“the girl was 13” correct and the other girl you chose not to mention was 12 but hey it’s only a small point. No biggy is it a 12 year old being sexually assaulted. 
 

Again, my point is I would have liked to have seen him jailed, which could have easily happened. Instead the judge decided on a pathetic slap on the wrists. 

[Casino]

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Which I can understand might not fit the exact definition of rape, but would still constitute a sexual assault.

If he was part of a group, then perhaps other things to consider. 

Which ever way you cut it, that still seems remarkably lenient.

Well, the sentencing guidelines need changing

The one innocent person in all of this is the judge

Action man knows this but he just wont let it go cos itd mean backing down

[royal white]

3 minutes ago, Casino said:

Well, the sentencing guidelines need changing

The one innocent person in all of this is the judge

Action man knows this but he just wont let it go cos itd mean backing down

What guidelines are you using? are you suggesting he couldn’t be jailed? You know what guidelines are don’t you. The clue is in there GUIDE. If You’re happy nonces are walking the streets then that’s your choice. It’s certainly not mine. 

Edited March 5, 2024 by royal white

[London Wanderer]

14 minutes ago, royal white said:

No biggy is it a 12 year old being sexually assaulted. 

What are you rambling on about now 😂 you sound desperate.

Again, my point is I would have liked to have seen him jailed, which could have easily happened. Instead the judge decided on a pathetic slap on the wrists. 

Many would agree with you there. I was having a go at Unity News for their 'reporting', misinformation and the way they targetted the judge. 

Please don't get too upset. I wasn't having a go at you 👍