The tone of the Rowland J's judgment sounds completely misplaced as if he's speaking to a couple of very naughty five year okds who drew a rude picture on the blackboard.
These youths are rapists. Not once but twice.
They came armed with a knife.
They videoed the attack.
Each of these acts is outrageous in itself. Combined, they show a determination to carry out the RAPES along with a complete lack of regard for the victims.
Borstal: cold showers at 6am, terrible food, cleaning toilets, under armed guard of adult psychopathic wardens might just wake them up. A year of that might be enough. It might take ten years.
There is a painting by Frans Floris called The wisdom of Solomon. The problem of communication style to find the truth.
Floris was a traveller from the Low Countries who went to Rome, a son of a stonemason, a stone cutter.
Has the judge inadvertently watered down the rights of the victim by the complex style of his thinking?
I’m not disagreeing with the thinking but consent is constantly being cut in half after the event by consideration for both lives.
No matter how diligent and well meaning teachers and teaching assistants are these days, boys of any age respond best to bullet points and absolute clarity. They do know what stop means and they do know what consent means.
Teenagers seem to have little sense of reality and adults are partly to blame for this. Schools are now realising that in their effort to people please they created violent and hopeless environments for children to learn anything, and children quoted equality and discrimination acts and complaints to LEAs. School did not deliver the curriculum. A legal system not delivering justice for the girls ..(All girls)
Consent was not in issue on the facts of this case .Putting a blade next to someone's throat removes the issue of consent. These were extremely nasty rapes committed by vicious perpetrators who cared not one jot for consent and obtained perverse and sickening gratification from humiliating their teenage victims .There is only one sentence that fits their vile crimes and it's an immediate custodial sentence for a period of years. In my opinion the sentence should have been 10 years to reflect the full gravity of these crimes and send a clear message to teenage boys that rape will be punished not excused .Teenage boys are highly sexualized by unlimited very violent pornography on the Web .They need clearly stated boundaries and strongly deterrent sentences .
It’s that aspect that worries me. Of course these are edited notes and may not be entirely accurate but if they are they show a large lacuna in the judge’s reasoning namely the effect on the victims, not only of the offences but also of having to give evidence and be cross examined.
Of course what a judge must not do is to increase a sentence due to a not guilty plea, but when I first heard about the sentence without knowing more of the background I assumed they had pleaded guilty and taken full responsibility for their crimes.
It “feels” wrong to me and I’m glad it’s been referred to the CA and I look forward to its adjudication.
The judge is speaking mot as an adult speaking about a serious crime but as if he's a benevolent headmaster. He might mean well but WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS?
It is inherently unlikely that two main perpetrators started their offending with Rapes .There are some reports that at least one of them had engaged in crimes of violence and sexual harassment but was not charged presumably because the WOKE notion was not to Criminalize them .(There are reports that these previous crimes were not disclosed to the Court) .If so ,it seemed to have given these teenagers licence to graduate to more serious criminality presumably in the expectation the Court would go softly so as not to "criminalize" them. People who commit crimes must be punished .That punishment must be sufficiently strong as to deter them from the commission of crimes in the future and to deter others who might be inclined to criminal conduct .This was an horrific sentencing decision .It sends a message to teenage boys that rape will not land them in custody for period of years. The decision is a betrayal of the victims , their rights to justice and the wider community .To suggest that those who commit crimes, particularly serious crimes ,should avoid proper punishment because if some woke notion that they should not be "criminalized" is in my opinion grotesque and perverse. UNLESS wrongdoing is met with a commensurate adverse consequence there is no effective deterrent to future offending. This case is an exemplar of what happens when teenagers avoid proper punishment; it fuels escalation. It is no coincidence that this wrong headed sentencing guidance results in teenagers behaving in feral behaviour in public .
The Media did not assert there were no consequences .The Media relayed the absence of an immediate custodial sentence for crimes if real gravity and for which all right thinking people would expect a long custodial sentence .There is a collective public shock that such serious criminal actions received trivial punishment and the victims individual suffering was not properly recognised in the sentencing .There are a number of grossly aggravating features to these crimes which made the perpetrators actions far worse for the real victims .
Thank you, I had already read this elsewhere.
The tone of the Rowland J's judgment sounds completely misplaced as if he's speaking to a couple of very naughty five year okds who drew a rude picture on the blackboard.
These youths are rapists. Not once but twice.
They came armed with a knife.
They videoed the attack.
Each of these acts is outrageous in itself. Combined, they show a determination to carry out the RAPES along with a complete lack of regard for the victims.
Borstal: cold showers at 6am, terrible food, cleaning toilets, under armed guard of adult psychopathic wardens might just wake them up. A year of that might be enough. It might take ten years.
There is a painting by Frans Floris called The wisdom of Solomon. The problem of communication style to find the truth.
Floris was a traveller from the Low Countries who went to Rome, a son of a stonemason, a stone cutter.
Has the judge inadvertently watered down the rights of the victim by the complex style of his thinking?
I’m not disagreeing with the thinking but consent is constantly being cut in half after the event by consideration for both lives.
No matter how diligent and well meaning teachers and teaching assistants are these days, boys of any age respond best to bullet points and absolute clarity. They do know what stop means and they do know what consent means.
They do know what no means.
Teenagers seem to have little sense of reality and adults are partly to blame for this. Schools are now realising that in their effort to people please they created violent and hopeless environments for children to learn anything, and children quoted equality and discrimination acts and complaints to LEAs. School did not deliver the curriculum. A legal system not delivering justice for the girls ..(All girls)
Consent was not in issue on the facts of this case .Putting a blade next to someone's throat removes the issue of consent. These were extremely nasty rapes committed by vicious perpetrators who cared not one jot for consent and obtained perverse and sickening gratification from humiliating their teenage victims .There is only one sentence that fits their vile crimes and it's an immediate custodial sentence for a period of years. In my opinion the sentence should have been 10 years to reflect the full gravity of these crimes and send a clear message to teenage boys that rape will be punished not excused .Teenage boys are highly sexualized by unlimited very violent pornography on the Web .They need clearly stated boundaries and strongly deterrent sentences .
It’s that aspect that worries me. Of course these are edited notes and may not be entirely accurate but if they are they show a large lacuna in the judge’s reasoning namely the effect on the victims, not only of the offences but also of having to give evidence and be cross examined.
Of course what a judge must not do is to increase a sentence due to a not guilty plea, but when I first heard about the sentence without knowing more of the background I assumed they had pleaded guilty and taken full responsibility for their crimes.
It “feels” wrong to me and I’m glad it’s been referred to the CA and I look forward to its adjudication.
The judge is speaking mot as an adult speaking about a serious crime but as if he's a benevolent headmaster. He might mean well but WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS?
It is inherently unlikely that two main perpetrators started their offending with Rapes .There are some reports that at least one of them had engaged in crimes of violence and sexual harassment but was not charged presumably because the WOKE notion was not to Criminalize them .(There are reports that these previous crimes were not disclosed to the Court) .If so ,it seemed to have given these teenagers licence to graduate to more serious criminality presumably in the expectation the Court would go softly so as not to "criminalize" them. People who commit crimes must be punished .That punishment must be sufficiently strong as to deter them from the commission of crimes in the future and to deter others who might be inclined to criminal conduct .This was an horrific sentencing decision .It sends a message to teenage boys that rape will not land them in custody for period of years. The decision is a betrayal of the victims , their rights to justice and the wider community .To suggest that those who commit crimes, particularly serious crimes ,should avoid proper punishment because if some woke notion that they should not be "criminalized" is in my opinion grotesque and perverse. UNLESS wrongdoing is met with a commensurate adverse consequence there is no effective deterrent to future offending. This case is an exemplar of what happens when teenagers avoid proper punishment; it fuels escalation. It is no coincidence that this wrong headed sentencing guidance results in teenagers behaving in feral behaviour in public .
Sad/unfortunate that the media sensationalised this - simply saying that these boys were convicted of rape and there were no consequences.
The Media did not assert there were no consequences .The Media relayed the absence of an immediate custodial sentence for crimes if real gravity and for which all right thinking people would expect a long custodial sentence .There is a collective public shock that such serious criminal actions received trivial punishment and the victims individual suffering was not properly recognised in the sentencing .There are a number of grossly aggravating features to these crimes which made the perpetrators actions far worse for the real victims .