Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think these boys should have been incarcerated?

863 replies

newrubylane · 21/05/2026 14:06

BBC News - Teenage boys sentenced for raping lone girls
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clypg68e2neo

I've never started an AIBU before, but I'm genuinely really shocked. I'm just not sure how this sentence is justifiable. Their actions were premeditated and deliberate, they were carrying a knife and they filmed themselves. They're obviously a danger to women/girls, and probably to other boys too.

If anyone knows how and why this sentence might have come about, I'd be interested to hear it.

A footpath beside a river, leading under a road bridge

Teenage boys sentenced for raping lone girls in Fordingbridge

The boys filmed themselves laughing and encouraging each other as they raped girls in separate attacks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clypg68e2neo

OP posts:
Thread gallery
40
ArabellaScott · 21/05/2026 16:51

Nogimachi · 21/05/2026 16:50

The “we shouldn’t criminalise children” brigade is why these things continue to happen.
If a boy is physically capable of rape, he’s not a child!

Yep.

The boys would be held in a YOI, not an adult prison.

I'm not aware of what happens in relatino to the SO register, one would hope they will be put on that anyway.

ChalkOutlines · 21/05/2026 16:51

Backedoffhackedoff · 21/05/2026 14:50

I’m afraid I agree we shouldn’t criminalise children

I think their risk to women/ the public and their progress in rehabilitation needs to be carefully assessed, and I would advocate on the side of caution with that- but not that they should be criminalised. It’s just not effective

Would you say the same of it was your daughter who was the victim of these boys? Certain actions, especially the premeditation and carrying out of it, deserve to be criminalised to the full extent of the law. Rape is one of them. They planned to violently rape another child.

Calminacrisis · 21/05/2026 16:51

I have also submitted a complaint about the sentence.

I can’t link to the PP but I totally disagree about ‘not criminalising children’. Those boys have made and carried out a plan to rape and humiliate two young girls, on separate occasions, to devastating effect. They are not innocents who will benefit from a cup of tea and some biscuits with a counsellor. In a long career in education, I taught several children who ended up as convicted murderers before they were out of their teens. The signs, unfortunately, were all there. These rapists needed a sentence that reflected the level of criminality they undertook and the impact of the lives of the victims, which seems to have been totally overlooked by the judge.

Namechangeforthisdilemma1 · 21/05/2026 16:52

Meadowfinch · 21/05/2026 16:42

Then for the first time, I see a reason to vote Reform. 🙁

If this is the Labour govt's idea of preventing violence against women and girls, then they have failed us all.

Not to derail…BUT If you think Reform will really keep ANY promise to “protect women and girls” then you are sadly mistaken. It’s a ruse, something they are saying to get female votes.

Did you not see the video of all the male reform voters on the march recently shouting “get your tits out for the lads” and the one who was filming himself hitting on a 15 year old girl in front of her mum?!

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2026 16:52

Longterm, does the legal/justice system think that letting boys off after raping girls in planned, co ordinated, recorded attacks is good for the country, society, and democracy?

EmiliaBassano · 21/05/2026 16:52

Slightyamusedandsilly · 21/05/2026 14:16

We live in a culture that hates women and allows boys and men to be animals.

My ancestor was murdered by her husband in the 1870s. She had left him because of domestic abuse and returned to her parents with two very small children. She was also in the early stages of pregnancy. She had left her fiance to marry her husband, who had badgered and badgered her to marry him - coercive control. When she left him, her ex wanted her to get a divorce and marry him. The husband killed her by battering her to death.

The defence described her as:

“bad, false, ill‑tempered and evil.” “The mischief began… by the sin and folly of the woman.” “The prisoner was outraged and stung beyond endurance partly by her wickedness and infidelity, and partly by her triumphant taunts.” “If this woman had been loose and wicked before her marriage, what was she afterwards?”

In fact the defence didn't defend, they prosecuted a dead woman. They twisted things to make her the one at fault. The summing up reveals the full machinery of Victorian misogyny that is still with us now. He argued that: “As coarse as the prisoner was, his wife was positively unworthy of him.”

We have learned nothing in 150 years, or so it seems.

Bollihobs · 21/05/2026 16:52

Backedoffhackedoff · 21/05/2026 14:50

I’m afraid I agree we shouldn’t criminalise children

I think their risk to women/ the public and their progress in rehabilitation needs to be carefully assessed, and I would advocate on the side of caution with that- but not that they should be criminalised. It’s just not effective

But surely they've criminalised themselves by their actions? No?

And if their attitude was that what they did was OK then the 'sentence' they've been given has surely reinforced that idea?

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2026 16:53

Calminacrisis · 21/05/2026 16:51

I have also submitted a complaint about the sentence.

I can’t link to the PP but I totally disagree about ‘not criminalising children’. Those boys have made and carried out a plan to rape and humiliate two young girls, on separate occasions, to devastating effect. They are not innocents who will benefit from a cup of tea and some biscuits with a counsellor. In a long career in education, I taught several children who ended up as convicted murderers before they were out of their teens. The signs, unfortunately, were all there. These rapists needed a sentence that reflected the level of criminality they undertook and the impact of the lives of the victims, which seems to have been totally overlooked by the judge.

Criminalising them would in fact probably be protective of these boys.

Angry women sending complaints in is really the least of their worries, when people don't think justice has been done.

RosieTheHat · 21/05/2026 16:53

Your form has been submitted
Your form reference number is:
6C6E35BR

Submitted - absolute disgrace.

fairislecable · 21/05/2026 16:55

I read the news of this appalling violence against 2 young girls and I wept.
I read the news of this appalling sentencing and I wept again.

Thank you for providing the link to complain against the sentencing, I originally thought someone else can sort this out, but ALL our voices need to be heard.

Please fellow mumsnetters this is really where we need a pile on. We are complicit if we are silent.

I have filled in the form.

CurlyKoalie · 21/05/2026 16:57

Monty36 · 21/05/2026 14:55

The fifteen year old you have to wonder if he was fit for trial. Their learning difficulties / ADHD were assessed as being in the bottom 1% for their age.

Sick to death of " learning difficulties" being used as an excuse to stop locking people up who are a danger to law abiding citizens.
The vast majority of people with learning difficulties do not behave like this. If a psychiatrist thinks that a mental impairment has caused this incident then maybe they need to be in a secure mental facility rather than a regular prison.
Whatever the reason, society needs to be protected from them.

Nogimachi · 21/05/2026 16:57

SweetSummerHerbs · 21/05/2026 16:12

What an arsehole of a judge and there are many more of them.

I think the judge should have to sign his name to a legal document stating that he will be held responsible for any sexual attack these rapists do in the next 20 years.

If he has such faith in the little shits, that won't be a problem for him and if it is, he should ask himself why he is willing for women to take the consequences and risks of his brainless sentence if he isn't.

A guarantor for a loan has to sign his name saying he will be responsible if the person making the loan repayments stops doing so. It is the same principle.

That might make a few of these soft headed, soft hearted judges think twice.

Great idea. I think the judge should have to communicate his decision directly to the victims and their family in private as well, and answer any questions they might have.

Conkersinautumn · 21/05/2026 16:58

It's ridiculous that the names of youths get to be withheld. Consent isnt a hard concept, doesnt need much functional intelligence. That's the sort of information that should follow them around as the misanthropic rapey literally good for nothings that they are.

Uptonogoood · 21/05/2026 16:59

Form submitted

Bollihobs · 21/05/2026 16:59

Nogimachi · 21/05/2026 16:48

“just” girls. Your comment says it all.

Eh? 🤔🙄

I meant - they weren't rich as mentioned in the previous comment, or fellow travellers, or any other connotation you can think of - they were just ordinary girls living their ordinary lives. And then this happened to them.

That's what I meant.
Which I think was very obvious.

Good grief. What a nit to pick! 🙄

Uptonogoood · 21/05/2026 17:00

Form Submitted - disgraceful sentence

PrettyPickle · 21/05/2026 17:00

I wasn't aware of this but I would appeal and ask them to increase the penalty to a minimum of imprisonment. Its appalling.

I think that unless someone has something to add that may explain the lenient sentence, because this article does not, we should to support an appeal/review or whatever. Can anyone add anything to explain the lenient sentence?

TheDogsNewHair · 21/05/2026 17:00

And mumsnet needs to sort itself out too. I get deleted for my comment which was explaining posters were not immature, but angry and upset that this can happen, but the disgusting posters post on here still remains. This used to be a site for women’s voices. What the hell is going on?

SingtotheCat · 21/05/2026 17:01

I KNEW that the judge would be male. Bastard.

pusskins06 · 21/05/2026 17:03

I have also submitted the undue leniency form

Those poor girls

jeffgoldblum · 21/05/2026 17:03

TheDogsNewHair · 21/05/2026 17:00

And mumsnet needs to sort itself out too. I get deleted for my comment which was explaining posters were not immature, but angry and upset that this can happen, but the disgusting posters post on here still remains. This used to be a site for women’s voices. What the hell is going on?

I saw that! I was trying to reply to you and then it wouldn’t let me post! , now mine is floating in the wind! 😬 , be aware that it would have had to have been reported!

Itsnotallaboutyoulikeyouthink · 21/05/2026 17:04

Can’t criminalise children? My son knew about consent from 10 years old. He knew what rape was and had it drummed into him no is no and you never do anything under certain circumstances. These boys are old enough to know right and wrong. Even if they have been brought up in the wrong environments they will know it’s wrong. They need to be stopped.

Nogimachi · 21/05/2026 17:04

Bollihobs · 21/05/2026 16:59

Eh? 🤔🙄

I meant - they weren't rich as mentioned in the previous comment, or fellow travellers, or any other connotation you can think of - they were just ordinary girls living their ordinary lives. And then this happened to them.

That's what I meant.
Which I think was very obvious.

Good grief. What a nit to pick! 🙄

It’s not a nit. The fact that you, a sympathetic poster on Mumsnet, uses such minimising language about girls, is really, really concerning. People don’t even realise they are doing it but words are strong.
”They were just travellers” vs “They were travellers.” “They were just black people.”

Do you see the difference?

BringaBintarongAlong · 21/05/2026 17:05

I have also messaged the BBC and asked why it is not on their social media.
I have not been so angry for a very long time.

ToWhitToWhoo · 21/05/2026 17:08

YANBU. So depressing.