The criminal culprit is not to blame.

Blame all those UK politicians who allow such people to enter, to get citizenship perhaps and who are not deported either them or their families.

9 minutes ago, Sigmund said:

The criminal culprit is not to blame.

Blame all those UK politicians who allow such people to enter, to get citizenship perhaps and who are not deported either them or their families.

The criminal culprit is to blame.

Found guilty in an open court to a crime for which video evidence exists.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The criminal culprit is to blame.

Found guilty in an open court to a crime for which video evidence exists.

Obviously.

But how many more behind, of similar potential that pose a threat.

Looking at his photo ,he's a neanderthal ,yes he is ,he will have to join

the Muslim brotherhood in the nick ,as I think someone is going to have

a go at him, not for hitting a police woman , but for hitting a woman .

regards Worgeordie

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

Nope, you thought you were being smart by singling out one sentence from a comment which suggested he could have been sentenced to 7 years in prison, and saying it was “correct”  You would not have done this if you were aware that it was not possible under sentencing guidelines in the UK.

You can deflect, evade, obfuscate, deny and prevaricate as much as you like, but you obviously did not know the UK judiciary guidelines for ABH section 47 at the time you wrote your comment; fortunately for you, I informed you so you are unlikely to make such a mistake again ….. you’re welcome

Department of Cherry Picking 🍒

The UK is 82% White, Christian, Agnostic.

Most crime in the UK is done by White people.

It's basic math.

Another cherry picked crime to prove Mooselims bad, white people good.

C'mon. Educated people who can do basic math know this, why not you?

Oh. Wait. You're a ra-

Nevermind.

I understand your low vibration.

5 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Nope, you thought you were being smart by singling out one sentence from a comment which suggested he could have been sentenced to 7 years in prison, and saying it was “correct”  You would not have done this if you were aware that it was not possible under sentencing guidelines in the UK.

You can deflect, evade, obfuscate, deny and prevaricate as much as you like, but you obviously did not know the UK judiciary guidelines for ABH section 47 at the time you wrote your comment; fortunately for you, I informed you so you are unlikely to make such a mistake again ….. you’re welcome

Neither I nor the post I responded to mentioned the sentencing guidelines.

I have not in this threaded mentioned or misrepresented any specific section of the sentencing guidelines.

No amount of fetid circular arguments on your part can change that fact.

You are grasping at stuff in your own imagination, effectively arguing with yourself.

Edited July 1Jul 1 by Chomper Higgot

3 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Department of Cherry Picking 🍒

The UK is 82% White, Christian, Agnostic.

Most crime in the UK is done by White people.

It's basic math.

Another cherry picked crime to prove Mooselims bad, white people good.

C'mon. Educated people who can do basic math know this, why not you?

Oh. Wait. You're a ra-

Nevermind.

I understand your low vibration.

A more salient point is the convicted thug in this case shares a single characteristic with the vast majority of viscous women beaters, indeed with the vast majority of the nation’s perpetrators of violence.

He’s male.

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Neither I nor the post I responded to mentioned the sentencing guidelines.

I have not in this threaded mentioned or misrepresented any specific section of the sentencing guidelines.

No amount of fetid circular arguments on your part can change that fact.

You are grasping at stuff in your own imagination, effectively arguing with yourself.

You are becoming very confused. I did not say you mentioned sentencing guidelines, how could you, you didn’t even know about them until I informed you.

I repeat, somebody suggested that he could have been sentenced to 7 years, and you highlighted that particular part of his comment simply to say “correct” about it.

You would not have done that if you had known about the sentencing guidelines for ABH Section 47

My claim was that at the time you made your comment you were unaware of the UK’s sentencing guidelines for ABH Section 47 and you unfortunately find it impossible to disprove my claim; it stands on solid ground.

27 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

You are becoming very confused. I did not say you mentioned sentencing guidelines, how could you, you didn’t even know about them until I informed you.

I repeat, somebody suggested that he could have been sentenced to 7 years, and you highlighted that particular part of his comment simply to say “correct” about it.

You would not have done that if you had known about the sentencing guidelines for ABH Section 47

My claim was that at the time you made your comment you were unaware of the UK’s sentencing guidelines for ABH Section 47 and you unfortunately find it impossible to disprove my claim; it stands on solid ground.

Here’s the statement I said was correct:

On 6/30/2026 at 9:46 AM, 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.

It is absolutely correct to say that if the judge had handed down a sentence of 7 years in custody, then the sentence would either be quashed or discharged.

Let me hear how you disagree with that statement.

Try not to dizzy yourself with circular arguments.

Edited July 1Jul 1 by Chomper Higgot

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here’s the statement I said was correct:

It is absolutely correct to say that if the judge had handed down a sentence of 7 years in custody, then the sentence would either be quashed or discharged.

Let me hear how you disagree with that statement.

Try not to dizzy yourself with circular arguments.

No, it is not absolutely correct, because it is completely hypothetical; it was absolutely impossible for the judge to hand down a sentence of 7 years, because he was restricted by guidelines of a a maximum tariff of 5 years for a conviction of ABH Section 47.

The fact that you replied “correct” to that hypothetical shows that you were unaware of the UK’s guidelines for sentencing at the time of commenting. I am surprised that @Patong2021 was unaware of the maximum tariff, but not surprised that you were unaware; however, pleased that you now have that knowledge, with no small thanks to myself … you’re welcome.

2 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

No, it is not absolutely correct, because it is completely hypothetical; it was absolutely impossible for the judge to hand down a sentence of 7 years, because he was restricted by guidelines of a a maximum tariff of 5 years for a conviction of ABH Section 47.

The fact that you replied “correct” to that hypothetical shows that you were unaware of the UK’s guidelines for sentencing at the time of commenting. I am surprised that @Patong2021 was unaware of the maximum tariff, but not surprised that you were unaware; however, pleased that you now have that knowledge, with no small thanks to myself … you’re welcome.

You’re there, well done!.

The statement ‘Had the judge given a sentence of 7 years in custody when other similar cases are given 2 years,.’ is a hypothetical.

The statement ‘the case would have been appealed and the sentence either quashed or discharged’ is a conclusion drawn from the preceding hypothetical.

The judge not following the guidelines would be grounds for appealing the sentence.

Thank you for providing the argument for why the statement I said was correct, is in truth correct

You dug the hole you are looking up out of yourself.

Edited July 1Jul 1 by Chomper Higgot

White People Crime

16 children rescued from Ohio home were 'almost feral,' authorities say https://share.google/CzDMla9Ln6XleSfCE

What's this have to do with cherry picking non-white crime by Mooselims in a country that's 82% White & Christian who do most of the crimes, not brown immigrants or Mooselims?

Oh, nothing really. No connection.

⚠️Not Cherry 🍒 Picking "average criminals" same in Ohio mostly white people, white criminals duh 😭

Edited July 2Jul 2 by SiSePuede419