15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oddly the OP doesn’t mention ‘two tier policing’.

It’s about the crimes, conviction and sentencing of Mohammed Fahir Amaaz.

It’s not about the rape case referred to in the video clip you posted.

This Cousin/Brother

1 hour ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

You keep parroting the same excuse for defending this unduly lenient sentence, but you are being disingenuous in your defence of the judge.

Your statement that the the judge applied the law as it is written, deflects completely from the fact that it is the judge’s sole responsibility for sentencing.

It is not written in law that he should have sentenced this vile scumbag to 3½ years, so the law does not need changing, and the sentencing guidelines are for a maximum of 5 years for the ABH conviction alone; and I have no idea why you do not think that this appalling act of violence on two policewomen does not deserve the maximum sentence permissibly by law.

The judge hands down the sentence, he does so by applying the sentencing guidelines.

Sentencing is not the judges sole responsibility.

1 hour ago, JAG said:

Many will cry that @Eloquent pilgrim is exaggerating and being alarmist. I think that in this example of our "imported diverse cultures" he is actually accurate in his opinion.

This is a tiger we have allowed in our society. Trying to ride on a tiger never ends well.

That’s not a very nice thing to say about EQ, though his emotional rants in all and any Muslim related thread must surely have some explanation.

42 minutes ago, Tidal wave said:

This Cousin/Brother

Ripped AI images perfectly sum up your ability to contribute anything worthwhile.

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The judge hands down the sentence, he does so by applying the sentencing guidelines.

Sentencing is not the judges sole responsibility.

Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of the UK’s judicial system.

As I have stated in several previous comments, a judge in the UK has sentencing parameters which restrict the maximum sentence he can hand down; but, and most importantly, within those guidelines, he has the sole responsibility for deciding the sentence.

This is a quote from the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website: “If a jury finds the defendant guilty then the judge will decide on an appropriate sentence”

It might be time for you to confine yourself to making comments on cases in a judicial system that you have some knowledge of.

7 hours ago, nexus7 said:

So, if he gets out in 6 months, you think that's a proportionate sentence? I think a lot of people would disagree with you and it doesn't set a very good deterrent to others.

Yes, I think he has some boxing experience after watching the video of him taking on and flooring several policemen in a matter of seconds. Do you really think someone who had never thrown a punch before could do that?

The only thing I could agree with you on in your argumentative post is his ugly face and schnozzer.

The police officers he attacked and reduced to tears were small and not physically capable of detaining anyone other than perhaps some wayward munchkins. The male officer who put an end to his stupidity was physically capable of controlling a man. Had he tried his moves on an actual boxer, he would have been trashed in seconds. The assailant only looked fierce because he was taking on two inept and incompetent police women. It neither excuses or excuses the result, but the WPCs were shown to be incapable of performing the tasks that they had.

The original complaint was a claim of a liberal conspiracy: A liberal judge giving a liberal penalty. This has been disproven. The custodial sentence given was longer than is typical of such cases. It is clear that some people do not understand that there are sentencing guidelines for offences. The judge must follow the guidelines and the sentencing history. If people object to the sentence given, they should take it up in the community. Go and change the applicable laws and change the sentencing guidelines, A judge can only apply what is allowed. Had the judge given a sentence of 7 years in custody when other similar cases are given 2 years, the case would have been appealed and the sentence either quashed or discharged.

55 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of the UK’s judicial system.

As I have stated in several previous comments, a judge in the UK has sentencing parameters which restrict the maximum sentence he can hand down; but, and most importantly, within those guidelines, he has the sole responsibility for deciding the sentence.

This is a quote from the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website: “If a jury finds the defendant guilty then the judge will decide on an appropriate sentence”

It might be time for you to confine yourself to making comments on cases in a judicial system that you have some knowledge of.

It might be time for to wind in your baseless assertions that the judge has been lenient, seemingly based only on the fact the person sentenced is a Muslim.

19 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Had the judge given a sentence of 7 years in custody when other similar cases are given 2 years, the case would have been appealed and the sentence either quashed or discharged.

Correct.

Which of course would have triggered another bout of ‘liberal conspiracy’ nonsense.

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

The police officers he attacked and reduced to tears were small and not physically capable of detaining anyone other than perhaps some wayward munchkins. The male officer who put an end to his stupidity was physically capable of controlling a man. Had he tried his moves on an actual boxer, he would have been trashed in seconds. The assailant only looked fierce because he was taking on two inept and incompetent police women. It neither excuses or excuses the result, but the WPCs were shown to be incapable of performing the tasks that they had.

The original complaint was a claim of a liberal conspiracy: A liberal judge giving a liberal penalty. This has been disproven. The custodial sentence given was longer than is typical of such cases. It is clear that some people do not understand that there are sentencing guidelines for offences. The judge must follow the guidelines and the sentencing history. If people object to the sentence given, they should take it up in the community. Go and change the applicable laws and change the sentencing guidelines, A judge can only apply what is allowed. Had the judge given a sentence of 7 years in custody when other similar cases are given 2 years, the case would have been appealed and the sentence either quashed or discharged.

I don't think you watched the video, he took on the male police officers too.

Also, it wasn't a male officer, who as you claim, "put an end to his stupidity", but a female officer who did, by tasering him after he punched her.

But if you want to believe your interpretation of events, good for you.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It might be time for to wind in your baseless assertions that the judge has been lenient, seemingly based only on the fact the person sentenced is a Muslim.

Obviously embarrassed and traumatised by your acute lack of knowledge of the UK’s judicial system being exposed, you now falsely claim that I consider the sentence unduly lenient because the criminal is a Muslim.

And how can my assertions that the judge was unduly lenient possibly be baseless, when for your information, the maximum sentence for ABH (section 47) is 5 years ? perhaps you should research the meaning of the word baseless, before using it again.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Correct.

Which of course would have triggered another bout of ‘liberal conspiracy’ nonsense.

Not correct, in fact it’s nonsense. Mohamed Fahir Amaaz could not possibly have been sentenced to 7 years, because he was convicted of ABH Section 47, which carries a maximum tariff of 5 years under the parameters set out by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.

He would have needed to be convicted of ABH section 29, in order for the judge to be able to hand down a sentence of 7 years.

Again you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of the UK’s judicial system; please do some research on the subject before embarrassing yourself yet again.

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The custodial sentence given was longer than is typical of such cases.

Really ? please provide evidence of another case where a man has been convicted of ABH on a policewoman causing a broken nose, and assault by beating on another policewoman, and has received a lesser sentence.

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

It is clear that some people do not understand that there are sentencing guidelines for offences.

No, it is not clear at all; I think that most people on this forum know by now, because I have mentioned the guidelines for ABH section 47 several times before; it is a maximum of 5 years.

19 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oddly the OP doesn’t mention ‘two tier policing’.

It’s about the crimes, conviction and sentencing of Mohammed Fahir Amaaz.

It’s not about the rape case referred to in the video clip you posted.

Look up Justice in the Dictionary Chomper weather its assault, rape , murder. theft , its the Justice being served.

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Ripped AI images perfectly sum up your ability to contribute anything worthwhile.

Looks perfectly plausible to everyone bar you again ... And it's pot and kettle in the ability to contribute anything worthwhile grand master.

5 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Look up Justice in the Dictionary Chomper weather its assault, rape , murder. theft , its the Justice being served.

Oh, so that’s you admitting there is nothing in the OP referring to ‘two tier justice’.

5 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Not correct, in fact it’s nonsense. Mohamed Fahir Amaaz could not possibly have been sentenced to 7 years, because he was convicted of ABH Section 47, which carries a maximum tariff of 5 years under the parameters set out by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.

He would have needed to be convicted of ABH section 29, in order for the judge to be able to hand down a sentence of 7 years.

Again you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of the UK’s judicial system; please do some research on the subject before embarrassing yourself yet again.

I’ve demonstrated nothing of the sort.

When you read and comprehend the sentencing guidelines you’ll note multiple clauses referring to aspects of the subject criminal act that direct the judge to the sentence to be applied.

You pointing out the maximum permitted sentence under the sentencing guidelines is only an indication of you not understanding the information presented to you from your online search.

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not a very nice thing to say about EQ

Who on earth is EQ, and what on earth do they have to do with this topic ?

The topic can clearly be seen at the top of the page, please try and stick to it.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve demonstrated nothing of the sort.

When you read and comprehend the sentencing guidelines you’ll note multiple clauses referring to aspects of the subject criminal act that direct the judge to the sentence to be applied.

You pointing out the maximum permitted sentence under the sentencing guidelines is only an indication of you not understanding the information presented to you from your online search.

Nonsense, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the UK judiciary system almost every time you make a comment pertaining to it. Your problem seems to be that you make a comment first and then research information afterwards; this also demonstrates a lack of logical thought process.

You even thought that someone that had been convicted of ABH section 47, could be sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, until I informed you that the maximum term under section 47, is 5 years.

10 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Nonsense, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the UK judiciary system almost every time you make a comment pertaining to it. Your problem seems to be that you make a comment first and then research information afterwards; this also demonstrates a lack of logical thought process.

You even thought that someone that had been convicted of ABH section 47, could be sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, until I informed you that the maximum term under section 47, is 5 years.

Please provide a quotation from me referring to any particular section of the sentencing guidelines or get to grips with the fact you are making yet another baseless claim.

When it comes to baseless accusations you’ve got form laddie.

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Please provide a quotation from me referring to any particular section of the sentencing guidelines or get to grips with the fact you are making yet another baseless claim.

When it comes to baseless accusations you’ve got form laddie.

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh, so that’s you admitting there is nothing in the OP referring to ‘two tier justice’.

Stop trying to put words into my mouth. A judge does not always judge within the CPS guidelines such as the three underage kids a while back who raped a young girl. The judge took into there young age and give them a light sentance, however because of the leniency of the judge Starmer had to step in and look at there sentance. After an outcry from the public.

Edited June 30Jun 30 by BarraMarra

5 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Well there you go, zero posts from me referring to any particular section of the sentencing guidelines.

“You even thought that someone that had been convicted of ABH section 47, could be sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, until I informed you that the maximum term under section 47, is 5 years.”

Utter unsubstantiated nonsense, I’ve never made any reference to any specific section of the sentencing guidelines, you’re making garbage up.

Like I said , you’ve got form laddie.

4 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Stop trying to out words into my mouth. A judge does not always judge within the CPS guidelines such as the three underage kids a wike back who raped a young girl. The judge took into there young age and give them a light sentance, however because of the leniency of the judge Starmer had to step in and look at there sentance.

Don’t wriggle, just provide a quote from the OP to ‘two tier policing’.

On 6/29/2026 at 2:20 PM, BarraMarra said:

Yes its about the justice and sentence imposed on Amaaz and two tier policing

It’s not about your ‘two tier policing

Edited June 30Jun 30 by Chomper Higgot

On 6/29/2026 at 10:45 AM, josephbloggs said:

Nonsense. Female officers are excellent in certain situations, much better than men.

I never said they weren't.

But chicks should not be on the beat if their physical limitations could put them in danger.

You want men (and women) on the beat who are like Bronson/Dirty Harry combined with muay thai skills like I have.

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well there you go, zero posts from me referring to any particular section of the sentencing guidelines.

“You even thought that someone that had been convicted of ABH section 47, could be sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, until I informed you that the maximum term under section 47, is 5 years.”

Utter unsubstantiated nonsense, I’ve never made any reference to any specific section of the sentencing guidelines, you’re making garbage up.

Like I said , you’ve got form laddie.

I understand that you are embarrassed at being caught red-handed and I do  sympathise.

However, the cold hard facts are that @Patong2021 made a comment, and rather than reply to his entire comment, you deliberately highlighted one sentence to reply to which said: “Had the judge given a sentence of 7 years in custody when other similar cases are given 2 years, the case would have been appealed and the sentence either quashed or discharged”

You then replied “correct” to this, you actually replied “correct” to someone suggesting he could have received a 7 year sentence; but of course, had you known anything about the UK judicial system, you would have known that a 7 year sentence could not have been given for the offence for which he was convicted.

So, not utter unsubstantiated nonsense at all; you are just embarrassed at having displayed your lack of knowledge of the UK’s judicial system once again.

So you then obfuscate, deflect and sneer, but you have form for doing that, don’t you cupcake.

Personal attack removed

2 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I understand that you are embarrassed at being caught red-handed and I do  sympathise.

However, the cold hard facts are that @Patong2021 made a comment, and rather than reply to his entire comment, you deliberately highlighted one sentence to reply to which said: “Had the judge given a sentence of 7 years in custody when other similar cases are given 2 years, the case would have been appealed and the sentence either quashed or discharged”

You then replied “correct” to this, you actually replied “correct” to someone suggesting he could have received a 7 year sentence; but of course, had you known anything about the UK judicial system, you would have known that a 7 year sentence could not have been given for the offence for which he was convicted.

So, not utter unsubstantiated nonsense at all; you are just embarrassed at having displayed your lack of knowledge of the UK’s judicial system once again.

So you then obfuscate, deflect and sneer, but you have form for doing that, don’t you cupcake.

Your argument relies on you yourself presenting evidence that I have not misrepresented any aspect t of UK law or the sentencing guidelines.

Thank you for confirming your repeated allegations are baseless.

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your argument relies on you yourself presenting evidence that I have not misrepresented any aspect t of UK law or the sentencing guidelines.

Thank you for confirming your repeated allegations are baseless.

Not baseless in any way, shape or form; you posted “correct” to a comment suggesting that the accused could have been sentenced to 7 years, when that was in fact not possible under the guidelines of his conviction.

You not only posted “correct” to this, but you deliberately highlighted that one sentence from a longer comment in order to reply “correct” to it.

The comment is still available for anyone to see, and as I said previously, it shows that you have very little knowledge of the UK’s judicial system.

It would also be appreciated if you could control your temper; I saw the nasty and completely false allegation you made before your comment was deleted; please stay polite, many thanks !

3 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Not baseless in any way, shape or form; you posted “correct” to a comment suggesting that the accused could have been sentenced to 7 years, when that was in fact not possible under the guidelines of his conviction.

You not only posted “correct” to this, but you deliberately highlighted that one sentence from a longer comment in order to reply “correct” to it.

The comment is still available for anyone to see, and as I said previously, it shows that you have very little knowledge of the UK’s judicial system.

It would also be appreciated if you could control your temper; I saw the nasty and completely false allegation you made before your comment was deleted; please stay polite, many thanks !

Do you ever give up with your baseless accusations?

I have not once referenced a single section of the sentencing guidelines, let alone misrepresented anything in the guidelines.

Even the post I was replying to, which you think is some kind of evidence against me, does not mention the sentencing guidelines.

It’s as simple as this, you’re making baseless accusations.

That you waste so much time and effort doing so is not something I am qualified to give an opinion on.

Let it pass, you’ve got nothing.