Page 4 | Judge lets three boy rapist go free with no jail time

ThreadGuardDog · 2026-05-24T10:38:22+00:00

[[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/24/uk-judge-decision-rape-girls-hampshire https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/24/uk-judge-decision-rape-girls-hampshire]] The judge said he wanted to avoid the boys attracting a criminal record so early in life. Is it so unreasonable to think that they should have thought of that before they committed the crime ? Rape/sexual assault, is up 10% according to national statistics. With sentences like these, reflecting the clear misogyny within the judiciary , is it any wonder ? Thoughts ?

Lahsania · 24/05/2026 14:54

anotheruser124 · 24/05/2026 13:38

I wonder if what we need is a petition to ask that rape sentencing guidelines change? They can only impose such sentences because it falls within the guidelines so maybe that is what needs changing.

I think a petition is needed, surely there is one?! Nobody decent or with a modicum of sanity will be agreeing with this sentence!

TheGreatDownandOut · 24/05/2026 14:52

Fucking RAGING about this. We live in a world where people can go to prison for posting things on social media but not for actually raping women. Wow.

Badbadbunny · 24/05/2026 14:51

AlexaStopAlexaNo · 24/05/2026 13:39

very likely they’ll be outed and their comeuppance dished out.

Nope, they'll be protected by their "community".

FernandoSor · 24/05/2026 14:51

ThreadGuardDog · 24/05/2026 13:24

Yes. Unalived and rape are words not permitted in the wonderful world of YouTube. The words are killed, murdered, raped. Censoring free speech in this way is adding to the problem.

Show quote history

But this isn’t YouTube? Sorry very confused.

CanSeeClearlyNowTheRainHasGone · 24/05/2026 14:48

Quine0nline · 24/05/2026 12:42

Is there a crowd of "patriots", defenders to "protect our women and girls" gathering? No, I didn't think so.

I may be wrong but I think that was one of the strands of the recent "reclaim the nation" (or whatever its called) marches (though only from certain religions no doubt). Not so much as a peep from the keffiyah brigade.

Changing topic, I think their low IQ was mentioned as a mitigating factor. I'm not sure how being too thick to realise rape is a heinous crime should make you immune to punishment. Personally i'd have thought that was an extra argument for keeping them out of the way of decent people.

CanSeeClearlyNowTheRainHasGone · 24/05/2026 14:39

fantam · 24/05/2026 11:48

I think there should be female only judges for male to female rape. Male judges can hear male/male rape cases. The male judges in female rape cases just do not have the life experience of women in such cases. Just my 2c.

Of course there are no guarantees that a female judge would be better as such, but there is more of a chance that she would empathise and understand more than a male judge would. IMO.

Slippery slope there.

We had a long period of advocating for female judges on the basis that they were not all emotional and would be just as competent and dispassionate as any existing judge.

You're arguing that judges own lived experiences and biases should come into judgements and sentences, and that the law is not therefore equal.

What next, female judges for DV as well?

What about divorce courts?
Or custody hearings?

And what would you say when someone appeals on the basis that the judge was deliberately selected to be biased against men.

Ps. I don't understand the sentencing decision at all ...

FinchiePink · 24/05/2026 13:40

anotheruser124 · 24/05/2026 13:38

I wonder if what we need is a petition to ask that rape sentencing guidelines change? They can only impose such sentences because it falls within the guidelines so maybe that is what needs changing.

This would be a more effective way to approach the situation. I'd fully back a campaign to review and amend the sentencing guidelines for sexual offences.

Thiswasanescapeplan · 24/05/2026 13:39

Am I right in thinking if it gets 100,000 signatures it needs a parliamentary debate?

FinchiePink · 24/05/2026 13:39

Thiswasanescapeplan · 24/05/2026 13:34

They might have a learning difficulty but they have enough ability to plan , carry out and share a gang rape.

It feels close to minimising the brutality or excusing it.

Show quote history

Yes, and that's why the aggravating factors are taken into account.

Again: the judge cannot go off-piste and hand down a sentence on a whim.

The sentencing guidelines determine what a judge can and cannot do.

The judge must act within those guidelines, taking into account the offence, the aggravating and the mitigating factors.

The sentence is now being reviewed by the AG. But if it is determined that the judge in this case did take proper care and applied the law correctly and was not unduly lenient ("unduly" meaning that it falls outside the range of sentences that could reasonably be considered appropriate in law, it does not merely mean lenient), then there will be no change.

AlexaStopAlexaNo · 24/05/2026 13:39

very likely they’ll be outed and their comeuppance dished out.

anotheruser124 · 24/05/2026 13:38

Thiswasanescapeplan · 24/05/2026 13:37

They need all their previous sentencing reviewed. There needs to be a Cochrane for judge decisions - pull and map the meta data across time.

Is this a one off (bad enough) or does this judge have form for siding with perpetrators.

Show quote history

Would be interesting to see their previous sentences for sure

anotheruser124 · 24/05/2026 13:38

I wonder if what we need is a petition to ask that rape sentencing guidelines change? They can only impose such sentences because it falls within the guidelines so maybe that is what needs changing.

Thiswasanescapeplan · 24/05/2026 13:37

Rockgrin · 24/05/2026 13:33

There needs to be consequences for a judge clearly displaying bias like this.

Exactly why a judge would have a bias for raping bastards also needs looking into.

They need all their previous sentencing reviewed. There needs to be a Cochrane for judge decisions - pull and map the meta data across time.

Is this a one off (bad enough) or does this judge have form for siding with perpetrators.

MabelAnderson · 24/05/2026 13:37

I posted on the other thread, re a gang rape by similarly aged boys in the mid 90s. They got hefty sentences, the leader a ten year sentence.
They had raped an adult tourist, taking her down onto the canal towpath in King’s Cross. She hadn’t been afraid of them as they were so young.

Thiswasanescapeplan · 24/05/2026 13:34

FinchiePink · 24/05/2026 13:25

There are lots of aggravating factors. The group element, the recording, the posting to social media, the pre-meditated nature.

There are also mitigating factors that were taken into account in sentencing. There are at least two (that we know of, there may be more) - their young ages at the time of the offences, and that at least two of them have some form of learning disability or special needs.

I don't disagree that the sentencing guidelines need to be reviewed, personally I think they do. Even if they are though, the new rules will not be retrospectively applied to this case.

Show quote history

They might have a learning difficulty but they have enough ability to plan , carry out and share a gang rape.

It feels close to minimising the brutality or excusing it.

Rockgrin · 24/05/2026 13:33

There needs to be consequences for a judge clearly displaying bias like this.

Exactly why a judge would have a bias for raping bastards also needs looking into.

SilverPink · 24/05/2026 13:27

bridgetreilly · 24/05/2026 13:23

Teenage boys get let off in the US too, in case it harms their ‘promising future’. Ugh, ugh, ugh.

Show quote history

Yeah especially if they’re high school football ‘stars’

FinchiePink · 24/05/2026 13:25

ThreadGuardDog · 24/05/2026 13:22

But the very fact that it’s within the scope of the law to allow the judge to make this decision is the problem. To my mind there were huge aggravating factors and there were no mitigating circumstances - beyond what the judge invented to support his decision. In what world does ‘good behaviour’ during the proceedings and not wanting three young rapists to have a criminal conviction so young mitigate anything ? If they didn’t want criminal records they shouldn’t have broken the law. They’re now free to live their lives regardless of the two lives they’ve ruined and will probably continue to be a danger to women for a long time to come. What kind of message is that sending ?

Edited

Show quote history

There are lots of aggravating factors. The group element, the recording, the posting to social media, the pre-meditated nature.

There are also mitigating factors that were taken into account in sentencing. There are at least two (that we know of, there may be more) - their young ages at the time of the offences, and that at least two of them have some form of learning disability or special needs.

I don't disagree that the sentencing guidelines need to be reviewed, personally I think they do. Even if they are though, the new rules will not be retrospectively applied to this case.

Original poster

ThreadGuardDog · 24/05/2026 13:24

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 24/05/2026 13:19

We’re not allowed to write those words are we.

Show quote history

Yes. Unalived and rape are words not permitted in the wonderful world of YouTube. The words are killed, murdered, raped. Censoring free speech in this way is adding to the problem.

OP posts:

FernandoSor · 24/05/2026 13:24

Thiswasanescapeplan · 24/05/2026 13:22

It's Orwellian webspeak for "dead"/"kill" other similar words.

Show quote history

Ah I suppose I should have been able to work that one out. Not sure why @Awwlookatmybabyspider used it in this context though.

bridgetreilly · 24/05/2026 13:23

ThreadGuardDog · 24/05/2026 11:57

I do think empathy with the victims plays a part, but a clear application of the actual law is what’s needed. The sentences passed down for rape in the UK are already laughable. In the USA thirty year sentences are the norm for the kind of acts these three animals committed. It’s about time we had something comparable.

Show quote history

Teenage boys get let off in the US too, in case it harms their ‘promising future’. Ugh, ugh, ugh.

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 24/05/2026 13:23

FernandoSor · 24/05/2026 13:21

What are you talking about? Of course you are allowed to write rape/rapist. I still don’t know what unalive means though.

Show quote history

It means dead.

FernandoSor · 24/05/2026 13:23

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 24/05/2026 13:18

Yes or at least a mandatory minimum custodial sentence
eg 40 years to WLT for r
It’s getting ridiculously out of hand that a single mother parent can go to jail for benefit fraud (often for survival rather than greed) and her kids be traumatized and put in care yet a disgusting violater can waltz round free.

Show quote history

The problem with a mandatory 40 year starting point for rape is you will get a lot of juries acquitting, even more so than do at the moment.

Thiswasanescapeplan · 24/05/2026 13:22

FernandoSor · 24/05/2026 13:21

What are you talking about? Of course you are allowed to write rape/rapist. I still don’t know what unalive means though.

Show quote history

It's Orwellian webspeak for "dead"/"kill" other similar words.

Original poster

ThreadGuardDog · 24/05/2026 13:22

FinchiePink · 24/05/2026 13:14

The judge can't impose his own sentence.

They have to sentence within the proscribed guidelines for the conviction, bearing in mind both aggravating and mitigating factors.

They cannot conjure up a sentence based on their own particular mores.

Show quote history

But the very fact that it’s within the scope of the law to allow the judge to make this decision is the problem. To my mind there were huge aggravating factors and there were no mitigating circumstances - beyond what the judge invented to support his decision. In what world does ‘good behaviour’ during the proceedings and not wanting three young rapists to have a criminal conviction so young mitigate anything ? If they didn’t want criminal records they shouldn’t have broken the law. They’re now free to live their lives regardless of the two lives they’ve ruined and will probably continue to be a danger to women for a long time to come. What kind of message is that sending ?

OP posts: