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

 

 

2 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think they have a plan about his they're going to do it. But that plan often falls apart as soon as it hits the real world.

I'd still expect an MP to have a bit of an understanding about a flagship policy mind. Or at least be able to come up with a plausible answer.

I'm not going to expect anything more or less than I would of any MP, just because he's northern and working class. There's plenty of very bright northern, working class people. He doesn't strike me as one of them mind.

Then it’s not a plan, it’s bait for votes. Some of the plans from the current goverment were outed by lads and lasses on a footy forum as being totally unrealistic, if us lot can call it then it’s pretty obvious they knew about it. And it’s not just Labour.

28 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think they have a plan about his they're going to do it. But that plan often falls apart as soon as it hits the real world.

I'd still expect an MP to have a bit of an understanding about a flagship policy mind. Or at least be able to come up with a plausible answer.

I'm not going to expect anything more or less than I would of any MP, just because he's northern and working class. There's plenty of very bright northern, working class people. He doesn't strike me as one of them mind.

If he has any less idea than the likes of Lammy, Abbott and Rayner it will be quite an achievement in itself.

As the discussion has moved on to intelligence and northern folk.

17 hours ago, Not in Crawley said:

Also, this fella from Reform is making everyone with a northern accent have to battle again that we aren't as thick as pig shit.

Awful.

and racist

7 minutes ago, RONNIE PHILLIPS said:

If he has any less idea than the likes of Lammy, Abbott and Rayner it will be quite an achievement in itself.

From what I've seen. Those three are towering intellectual giants compared to this guy! 🤣

2 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Question: Did the judge get this right or wrong or was he simply following the guidelines, and if so are the guidelines wrong?

Teen rapists spared jail partly because of intellectual limitations, judge's full remarks show

Three boys convicted of raping two girls in separate attacks were spared custody by a judge because of detailed evidence about the precise nature of their offending, prospects for rehabilitation, and the profound intellectual limitations of two of the teenagers.

The boys' sentencing last month caused an outcry when they were given youth rehabilitation orders (YROs) after being found guilty of 10 counts of rape between them for their parts in the Hampshire assaults in 2024 and 2025.

BBC News has since obtained the full transcript of the judge's sentencing remarks revealing the extremely complex sentencing exercise, including submissions about the boys' neurological impairments and their capacity to understand the impact that they had had on the victims.

The sentences are being referred to the Court of Appeal after a review.

Two boys, then aged 14, were convicted of raping a girl, then aged 15, in November 2024 in Fordingbridge.

In a separate incident in January 2025, a second girl, then aged 14, was raped by the two boys in Fordingbridge. A third boy, then 13, was found guilty of rape by aiding and abetting that attack.

According to the full transcript, an expert from the government's Youth Justice Service told Southampton Crown Court that placing one of boys in custody would be damaging, given his complex intellectual impairments.

Judge Nicholas Rowland said the first offender, J, was described as having ADHD and "slight cognitive difficulties", but he said that did not reduce his personal culpability.

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.

"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."

The two older boys, J and N, received three-year YROs with 180 days of intensive supervision. The youngest boy, E, received an 18-month YRO.

These sentences mean the boys returned to their community, but under strict monitoring to see if they are making progress.

The sentencing remarks show that Judge Rowland split the sentencing of the three boys into two parts.

In the first phase, he addressed the boys directly with simple, generalised language, reflecting advice given to all judges to talk to child offenders in a way that they can understand.

During this phase, the judge referred to their crimes as "serious things".

He told the boys that the restrictions he was placing on their lives were a punishment and they must be overseen by experts "so that you do not do the things that jury decided you did do".

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.

Teen rapists spared jail partly because of intellectual limitations, judge's full remarks show - BBC News

Sluffy, can you shorten your posts, you quote something then put a link as well, not a clue what it says as I go to bed at 11

36 minutes ago, kent_white said:

From what I've seen. Those three are towering intellectual giants compared to this guy! 🤣

Harvey Price would win a battle of the minds with Lammy ffs!🤣🤣

I suspect the lad from Makerfield will get no where near Parliament. Unfortunately, Lammy did.😊

17 minutes ago, RONNIE PHILLIPS said:

Harvey Price would win a battle of the minds with Lammy ffs!🤣🤣

He's got a law degree from Harvard. I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and presume he's a bit brighter than the bloke running for Reform in Makerfield. Although probably less likely to know how to fix a leak under your sink.

That's not to say DL has never said anything daft - but intellectually Lammy is in a different league altogether. And probably than most people who have ever posted on this forum.

Paul Quinn gets 24 years for the Cleggs Lane rape in 2003

https://www.itv.com/watch/news/watch-as-judge-sentences-paul-quinn-to-24-years-for-rape-which-man-was-wrongly-convicted-over/fk4jfxs

Maximum is life; it gave me shivers watching this, knowing his path was literally yards from my home. Hope he serves every single day in hell

20 minutes ago, kent_white said:

He's got a law degree from Harvard. I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and presume he's a bit brighter than the bloke running for Reform in Makerfield. Although probably less likely to know how to fix a leak under your sink.

That's not to say DL has never said anything daft - but intellectually Lammy is in a different league altogether. And probably than most people who have ever posted on this forum.

Angela Rayner left school with more kids than qualifications. She became deputy prime minister.

That’s my last of the day. Got a steak and nice bottle of wine to consume. 😉😊👍

1 hour ago, BobyBrno said:

As the discussion has moved on to intelligence and northern folk.

That would be one of those plans that they had.

35 minutes ago, Dr Faustus said:

Paul Quinn gets 24 years for the Cleggs Lane rape in 2003

https://www.itv.com/watch/news/watch-as-judge-sentences-paul-quinn-to-24-years-for-rape-which-man-was-wrongly-convicted-over/fk4jfxs

Maximum is life; it gave me shivers watching this, knowing his path was literally yards from my home. Hope he serves every single day in hell

Doubt it was his first rodeo or last

45 minutes ago, Dr Faustus said:

Paul Quinn gets 24 years for the Cleggs Lane rape in 2003

https://www.itv.com/watch/news/watch-as-judge-sentences-paul-quinn-to-24-years-for-rape-which-man-was-wrongly-convicted-over/fk4jfxs

Maximum is life; it gave me shivers watching this, knowing his path was literally yards from my home. Hope he serves every single day in hell

Just seen this on BBC Northwest news. He could be out on licence in 14 years. 3 years less than the innocent guy got.

The law is an ass!

2 hours ago, BobyBrno said:

As the discussion has moved on to intelligence and northern folk.

Completely overhaul the PGCE,

Teachers no longer create their own lessons. Less research and assignments, and offer them huge bursaries.

They're kicking the can down the road.

15 minutes ago, deeane Koontz said:

Doubt it was his first rodeo or last

He received a criminal caution for indecent assault at the age of 12, and then a conviction for rape at the age of 16

A complete and utter danger

3 hours ago, BobyBrno said:

As the discussion has moved on to intelligence and northern folk.

You’ve not read that properly have you?

5 hours ago, royal white said:

Tell me they’re from the gypsy community without telling me they from the gypsy community.

This 2 tier policing that many on here have said is a load of bollocks. I was listening t’ wireless the other morning and they had an ex highly ranked police officer on, the discussion was two tier policing, he used to laugh it off and say it was ridiculous. He now has a totally different look On it. The guidelines that forces are using have what he said were sloppy references and guidelines, anyone looking at them could easily say it’s two tier and it would be hard to argue against it.

Think you have to look at the whole picture.

I'm yet to see widespread evidence of white people being treated worse than ethnic minorities across the justice system.

Folk can bring up isolated incidents for sure, but most of the time you could also bring something up where coppers treated a muslim or black person a certain way. Until folk can provide genuine evidence of white folk being treated differently, then I'll stick with Farage is talking shite again.

Then there was Tommy Robinson waffling on about white people now being second class citizens in Britain. Where the fuck do you start with that 😂

47 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Think you have to look at the whole picture.

I'm yet to see widespread evidence of white people being treated worse than ethnic minorities across the justice system.

Folk can bring up isolated incidents for sure, but most of the time you could also bring something up where coppers treated a muslim or black person a certain way. Until folk can provide genuine evidence of white folk being treated differently, then I'll stick with Farage is talking shite again.

Then there was Tommy Robinson waffling on about white people now being second class citizens in Britain. Where the fuck do you start with that 😂

It’s not exclusive to white people

4 hours ago, kent_white said:

He's got a law degree from Harvard. I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and presume he's a bit brighter than the bloke running for Reform in Makerfield. Although probably less likely to know how to fix a leak under your sink.

That's not to say DL has never said anything daft - but intellectually Lammy is in a different league altogether. And probably than most people who have ever posted on this forum.

And I'll give you even money he cant tie his own shoe laces. Education and intelligence arent always the same thing.

10 minutes ago, RONNIE PHILLIPS said:

And I'll give you even money he cant tie his own shoe laces. Education and intelligence arent always the same thing.

Says thick blokes since the dawn of time. Not you, obvs.

12 minutes ago, RONNIE PHILLIPS said:

And I'll give you even money he cant tie his own shoe laces. Education and intelligence arent always the same thing.

No, they aren't always the same thing. But they frequently correlate. Especially at an institution like Harvard. He's also been a practising barrister in England and the US. Those aren't positions you just stumble into.

Whether that intelligence translates into sound political judgement depends more on your views on the positions he takes. But he's clearly an intelligent man.

13 minutes ago, kent_white said:

No, they aren't always the same thing. But they frequently correlate. Especially at an institution like Harvard. He's also been a practising barrister in England and the US. Those aren't positions you just stumble into.

Whether that intelligence translates into sound political judgement depends more on your views on the positions he takes. But he's clearly an intelligent man.

As are Boris and Keir. Look where that’s got us.

4 hours ago, athywhite1958 said:

Sluffy, can you shorten your posts, you quote something then put a link as well, not a clue what it says as I go to bed at 11

Yes I can do that but I didn't because a great many people had a lot to say about the judgement at the time without knowing the reasoning of the judge who made the decision.

I had thought people would have wanted to read his reasoning and that why I posted it all in full.

I posted the link to the source also so that anyone can see for themselves it was genuine (I know most people these days seem to believe what they read on social media as gospel (whether it be true or utter bullshit).

I'm quite disappointed that the good folk of this forum seem to be angry at me for posting something up that must take all of about 3 minutes to read than be in anyway at all interested in something they had spent hours on here posting about (only a week or so ago) based on just one side of the story.

Even our beloved Prime Minister went public and said it was an 'appalling' case and "right" that the sentences the judge issued was being reviewed.

(I would normally link to to the source but I gather it isn't 'de rigueur to do so on here).

It will be interesting to see (at least for me) what the review of the sentencing may bring.

I'm sure there are other facts that aren't fully in the public domain that will also be considered as the sentencing is reviewed by the Attorney General such as the professional analysis of the individual boys behaviour (before and since being arrested) and their intelligence.

What sort of response will there be if the sentence is confirmed as correct for instance?

If the sentence is toughened would that be because the judge got it wrong or has there been political pressure brought to bear in someway (the government would want to be seem to be hard on crime (especially rape of children) would they not?

Is it right to punish someone for doing something wrong (rape in this case) when they haven't got the capacity to know right from wrong (their mentality being in lowest 1% of their age group).

Should we just just euthanise the dregs of society (and our visitors arriving on the black rubber dinghy's, might as well chuck in the Muslims as well, oh and people who write long posts) and be done with it?

Who knows?

Disappointed that people are more bothered about me writing another post that might take 3 minutes to read, than learn about the reasons why the judge give the sentence that most of the country (and many on here) were angry and upset about.

Disappointed yes but regrettably not at all surprised.

Seems to be the most heinous thing you can do on here unfortunately for me.

BBC News

Two found guilty of stabbing Iranian opposition journalist

Pouria Zeraati, who works for the channel Iran International, which is critical of the Iranian government, was stabbed three times in the leg.

More for the volcano.

Edited Friday at 22:002 days by green genie