It's in here, the judge's sentencing remarks. His Honour Judge Rowland,T20257005.pdf
using words that children can understand. Impressed?
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-No-44SC0053025-
It's in here, the judge's sentencing remarks. His Honour Judge Rowland,
using words that children can understand. Impressed?
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf
On 6 Jun 2026 at 09:02:11 BST, "Jeff Layman" <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 05/06/2026 19:16, The Todal wrote:
It's in here, the judge's sentencing remarks. His Honour Judge Rowland,
using words that children can understand. Impressed?
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf
Very detailed, and, the judge points out, a difficult case.
A couple of points, one of which I raised in the other thread. Is there
a specific meaning for the term "criminalising" in law? This word was
mentioned a lot of times in media reports and comments. The only mention
in the sentencing remarks is at 10E "I should avoid criminalising these
children unnecessarily...". However, as by the time he wrote these
comments they were criminals in the eyes of the law having just been
found guilty of rape and other offences, aren't they already /serious/
criminals? Also, on that basis, any idea why there is no mention of them
being placed on the Sexual Offences Register?
The other point concerns "J" and "N". The judge noted with respect to J
(14B):
"He has been assessed by the Youth Justice Services, presenting a medium
risk in terms of reoffending and causing harm, but high risk of serious
harm to female children."
And, at 15H with respect to N:
"He is assessed as presenting a medium risk of reoffending but high risk
of harm to young females."
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this
sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
I am not sure to what extent this answers your point, but he later says that he would have had to consider a custodial sentence had the boy(s) been assessed as having a "very high" risk of harm to young females.
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this
sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 09:02:11 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this
sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
In this particular case, a curfew, electronic tagging and intense
supervision (including compulsory attendance at training). It's essentially three years of house arrest.
Another problem in this particular case would be the low intelligence of
the offendants; would they understand what the curfew and tagging is
for,
or would they ignore it?
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 08:10:10 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
Another problem in this particular case would be the low intelligence of
the offendants; would they understand what the curfew and tagging is
for,
or would they ignore it?
If someone cannot understand the nature of the punishment they have been served, then surely it is up for debate as to whetehr they comprehended
the nature of their actions.
It seems to me a picture of Schrodingers scrotes is emerging. Not so
thick as to be not held respobsuble, but so thick as to get off lightly.
On 2026-06-08, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 08:10:10 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
Another problem in this particular case would be the low intelligence of >>> the offendants; would they understand what the curfew and tagging is
for,
or would they ignore it?
If someone cannot understand the nature of the punishment they have been
served, then surely it is up for debate as to whetehr they comprehended
the nature of their actions.
It seems to me a picture of Schrodingers scrotes is emerging. Not so
thick as to be not held respobsuble, but so thick as to get off lightly.
Just like Schr||dinger's President, who is apparently not demented enough
for it to be a bad idea to let him be in control of nuclear missiles,
but would immediately be far too demented to face justice if there
appeared to be any danger of that happening.
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 09:02:11 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this
sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
In this particular case, a curfew, electronic tagging and intense
supervision (including compulsory attendance at training). It's essentially three years of house arrest.
On 07/06/2026 22:41, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 09:02:11 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this
sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
In this particular case, a curfew, electronic tagging and intense
supervision (including compulsory attendance at training). It's
essentially
three years of house arrest.
How do you train people to tell the difference between rape and
consensual sex when it's so blurred?
On 08/06/2026 12:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/06/2026 22:41, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 09:02:11 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this
sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
In this particular case, a curfew, electronic tagging and intense
supervision (including compulsory attendance at training). It's
essentially
three years of house arrest.
How do you train people to tell the difference between rape and
consensual sex when it's so blurred?
Did you watch the Panorama programme about David Sullivan? One woman
after another complaining that seedy David asked for sex and some women
did what he asked, others made their excuses and left. I don't think
there was anything that amounted to rape. Just seediness and
exploitation. I don't think it is surprising that the police did not see
any reason to prosecute. Others may disagree?
See also https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/08/revealed-david-sullivan- sunday-sport-sold-sexualised-images-girls
On 08/06/2026 12:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/06/2026 22:41, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 09:02:11 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this
sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
In this particular case, a curfew, electronic tagging and intense
supervision (including compulsory attendance at training). It's
essentially
three years of house arrest.
How do you train people to tell the difference between rape and
consensual sex when it's so blurred?
Did you watch the Panorama programme about David Sullivan? One woman
after another complaining that seedy David asked for sex and some women
did what he asked, others made their excuses and left. I don't think
there was anything that amounted to rape. Just seediness and
exploitation. I don't think it is surprising that the police did not see
any reason to prosecute. Others may disagree?
See also https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/08/revealed-david-sullivan- sunday-sport-sold-sexualised-images-girls
On 08/06/2026 22:10, The Todal wrote:
On 08/06/2026 12:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/06/2026 22:41, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 09:02:11 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote:
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this >>>>> sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
In this particular case, a curfew, electronic tagging and intense
supervision (including compulsory attendance at training). It's
essentially
three years of house arrest.
How do you train people to tell the difference between rape and
consensual sex when it's so blurred?
Did you watch the Panorama programme about David Sullivan? One woman
after another complaining that seedy David asked for sex and some women
did what he asked, others made their excuses and left. I don't think
there was anything that amounted to rape. Just seediness and
exploitation. I don't think it is surprising that the police did not see
any reason to prosecute. Others may disagree?
I don't really understand what you think he could have been prosecuted
for?
What is also perplexing is why he's threatening to sue, and why he's now
too tainted by these allegations to chair west ham?
On 08/06/2026 22:10, The Todal wrote:
On 08/06/2026 12:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/06/2026 22:41, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 09:02:11 +0100, Jeff Layman
<Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this >>>>> sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
In this particular case, a curfew, electronic tagging and intense
supervision (including compulsory attendance at training). It's
essentially
three years of house arrest.
How do you train people to tell the difference between rape and
consensual sex when it's so blurred?
Did you watch the Panorama programme about David Sullivan? One woman
after another complaining that seedy David asked for sex and some
women did what he asked, others made their excuses and left. I don't
think there was anything that amounted to rape. Just seediness and
exploitation. I don't think it is surprising that the police did not
see any reason to prosecute. Others may disagree?
I don't really understand what you think he could have been prosecuted for?
What is also perplexing is why he's threatening to sue, and why he's now
too tainted by these allegations to chair west ham?
See also
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/08/revealed-david-sullivan-
sunday-sport-sold-sexualised-images-girls
On 05/06/2026 19:16, The Todal wrote:
It's in here, the judge's sentencing remarks. His Honour Judge Rowland,
using words that children can understand. Impressed?
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf
Very detailed, and, the judge points out, a difficult case.
A couple of points, one of which I raised in the other thread. Is there
a specific meaning for the term "criminalising" in law? This word was mentioned a lot of times in media reports and comments. The only mention
in the sentencing remarks is at 10E "I should avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily...". However, as by the time he wrote these
comments they were criminals in the eyes of the law having just been
found guilty of rape and other offences, aren't they already /serious/ criminals? Also, on that basis, any idea why there is no mention of them being placed on the Sexual Offences Register?
The other point concerns "J" and "N". The judge noted with respect to J (14B):
"He has been assessed by the Youth Justice Services, presenting a medium
risk in terms of reoffending and causing harm, but high risk of serious
harm to female children."
And, at 15H with respect to N:
"He is assessed as presenting a medium risk of reoffending but high risk
of harm to young females."
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this
sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
On 6 Jun 2026 at 09:02:11 BST, "Jeff Layman" <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 05/06/2026 19:16, The Todal wrote:
It's in here, the judge's sentencing remarks. His Honour Judge Rowland,
using words that children can understand. Impressed?
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Case-No-44SC0053025-T20257005.pdf
Very detailed, and, the judge points out, a difficult case.
A couple of points, one of which I raised in the other thread. Is there
a specific meaning for the term "criminalising" in law? This word was
mentioned a lot of times in media reports and comments. The only mention
in the sentencing remarks is at 10E "I should avoid criminalising these
children unnecessarily...". However, as by the time he wrote these
comments they were criminals in the eyes of the law having just been
found guilty of rape and other offences, aren't they already /serious/
criminals? Also, on that basis, any idea why there is no mention of them
being placed on the Sexual Offences Register?
The other point concerns "J" and "N". The judge noted with respect to J
(14B):
"He has been assessed by the Youth Justice Services, presenting a medium
risk in terms of reoffending and causing harm, but high risk of serious
harm to female children."
And, at 15H with respect to N:
"He is assessed as presenting a medium risk of reoffending but high risk
of harm to young females."
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this
sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
I am not sure to what extent this answers your point, but he later says that he would have had to consider a custodial sentence had the boy(s) been assessed as having a "very high" risk of harm to young females.
On 08/06/2026 22:10, The Todal wrote:
Did you watch the Panorama programme about David Sullivan? One woman
after another complaining that seedy David asked for sex and some
women did what he asked, others made their excuses and left. I don't
think there was anything that amounted to rape. Just seediness and
exploitation. I don't think it is surprising that the police did not
see any reason to prosecute. Others may disagree?
I don't really understand what you think he could have been prosecuted for?
What is also perplexing is why he's threatening to sue, and why he's now
too tainted by these allegations to chair west ham?
On 09/06/2026 13:46, GB wrote:
On 08/06/2026 22:10, The Todal wrote:
On 08/06/2026 12:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/06/2026 22:41, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 09:02:11 +0100, Jeff Layman
<Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this >>>>>> sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
In this particular case, a curfew, electronic tagging and intense
supervision (including compulsory attendance at training). It's
essentially
three years of house arrest.
How do you train people to tell the difference between rape and
consensual sex when it's so blurred?
Did you watch the Panorama programme about David Sullivan? One woman
after another complaining that seedy David asked for sex and some
women did what he asked, others made their excuses and left. I don't
think there was anything that amounted to rape. Just seediness and
exploitation. I don't think it is surprising that the police did not
see any reason to prosecute. Others may disagree?
I don't really understand what you think he could have been prosecuted for?
I thought my post was clear - I can't see anything that he could be prosecuted for, and I wondered if anyone else could suggest a relevant offence. Maybe a new offence of "dressing scruffily"?
The tenor of the programme was to make Sullivan seem like Harvey
Weinstein, trying to have sex with women in exchange for giving them a
job. But Weinstein overpowered and raped women. Sullivan simply backed
away when the women refused. I think one woman thought she may have said
she didn't want to do it while he was having intercourse with her, but
she wasn't absolutely sure, and of course in law the belief of the
defendant that there is consent is a valid defence. I thought "what, not
even a blow job?" was actually rather funny. A line worthy of Ricky Gervais.
What is also perplexing is why he's threatening to sue, and why he's now
too tainted by these allegations to chair west ham?
--
See also
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/08/revealed-david-sullivan-
sunday-sport-sold-sexualised-images-girls
On 09/06/2026 13:46, GB wrote:
On 08/06/2026 22:10, The Todal wrote:
On 08/06/2026 12:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/06/2026 22:41, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 09:02:11 +0100, Jeff Layman
<Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this >>>>>> sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
In this particular case, a curfew, electronic tagging and intense
supervision (including compulsory attendance at training). It's
essentially
three years of house arrest.
How do you train people to tell the difference between rape and
consensual sex when it's so blurred?
Did you watch the Panorama programme about David Sullivan? One woman
after another complaining that seedy David asked for sex and some
women did what he asked, others made their excuses and left. I don't
think there was anything that amounted to rape. Just seediness and
exploitation. I don't think it is surprising that the police did not
see any reason to prosecute. Others may disagree?
I don't really understand what you think he could have been prosecuted
for?
I thought my post was clear - I can't see anything that he could be prosecuted for, and I wondered if anyone else could suggest a relevant offence. Maybe a new offence of "dressing scruffily"?
The tenor of the programme was to make Sullivan seem like Harvey
Weinstein, trying to have sex with women in exchange for giving them a
job. But Weinstein overpowered and raped women. Sullivan simply backed
away when the women refused. I think one woman thought she may have said
she didn't want to do it while he was having intercourse with her, but
she wasn't absolutely sure, and of course in law the belief of the
defendant that there is consent is a valid defence. I thought "what, not even a blow job?" was actually rather funny. A line worthy of Ricky
Gervais.
What is also perplexing is why he's threatening to sue, and why he's
now too tainted by these allegations to chair west ham?
See also
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/08/revealed-david-
sullivan- sunday-sport-sold-sexualised-images-girls
On 2026-06-09, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 08/06/2026 22:10, The Todal wrote:
On 08/06/2026 12:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/06/2026 22:41, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 09:02:11 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
Isn't this rather a red flag? How else could another offence of this >>>>>> sort against young females be prevented by anything other than a
custodial sentence?
In this particular case, a curfew, electronic tagging and intense
supervision (including compulsory attendance at training). It's
essentially
three years of house arrest.
How do you train people to tell the difference between rape and
consensual sex when it's so blurred?
Did you watch the Panorama programme about David Sullivan? One woman
after another complaining that seedy David asked for sex and some women
did what he asked, others made their excuses and left. I don't think
there was anything that amounted to rape. Just seediness and
exploitation. I don't think it is surprising that the police did not see >>> any reason to prosecute. Others may disagree?
I don't really understand what you think he could have been prosecuted
for?
Todal said he *didn't* think there was any reason to prosecute.
What is also perplexing is why he's threatening to sue, and why he's now
too tainted by these allegations to chair west ham?
Well they certainly seem like defamatory allegations if they turned out
not to be true.
On 09/06/2026 13:46, GB wrote:
On 08/06/2026 22:10, The Todal wrote:
Did you watch the Panorama programme about David Sullivan? One woman
after another complaining that seedy David asked for sex and some
women did what he asked, others made their excuses and left. I don't
think there was anything that amounted to rape. Just seediness and
exploitation. I don't think it is surprising that the police did not
see any reason to prosecute. Others may disagree?
I don't really understand what you think he could have been prosecuted
for?
What is also perplexing is why he's threatening to sue, and why he's
now too tainted by these allegations to chair west ham?
Sadly, these days, no proof or actual evidence of anything illegal is required.-a It's apparently sufficient just to make unsupported
allegations about any sort of behaviour you may have encountered, even
in retrospect after decades of complete silence when you just got on
with your life.-a As long as you call it 'inappropriate' and for bonus points mention 'mental health', that is sufficient in itself to condemn,
and for the 'perpetrator' to be shunned and severely punished by society.
It's what did for Andrew, after all.
What is also perplexing is why he's threatening to sue, and why he's now
too tainted by these allegations to chair west ham?
Well they certainly seem like defamatory allegations if they turned out
not to be true.
On 09/06/2026 18:40, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 08/06/2026 22:10, The Todal wrote:
Did you watch the Panorama programme about David Sullivan? One woman
after another complaining that seedy David asked for sex and some women >>>> did what he asked, others made their excuses and left. I don't think
there was anything that amounted to rape. Just seediness and
exploitation. I don't think it is surprising that the police did not see >>>> any reason to prosecute. Others may disagree?
I don't really understand what you think he could have been prosecuted
for?
Todal said he *didn't* think there was any reason to prosecute.
What is also perplexing is why he's threatening to sue, and why he's now >>> too tainted by these allegations to chair west ham?
Well they certainly seem like defamatory allegations if they turned out
not to be true.
In this case, the defamatory statement could be a matter of opinion, or approval. "Inveterate womaniser" could be an insult or praise.
On 09/06/2026 18:40, Jon Ribbens wrote:
To be defamatory, don't statements need to reduce the reputation of the person they are being made about? Perhaps I'm too cynical ...What is also perplexing is why he's threatening to sue, and why he's
now too tainted by these allegations to chair west ham?
Well they certainly seem like defamatory allegations if they turned out
not to be true.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 69 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 33:33:08 |
| Calls: | 900 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,320 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (12,347K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,210 |