The police Operation Vapour, set up to deal with the huge problem of child sexual exploitation, mostly it seems carried out by Muslims, in Telford, has resulted in another set of beasts being given prison sentences. The four Muslim men who have been convicted of sexually exploiting a 13 year old girl have now been imprisoned but the sentences dished out by a judge at Birmingham Crown Court look to me to be somewhat lenient.

The sentences handed down to the convicted Islamic Rape Gang members range from four and a half years to eight years. This is plainly not long enough to punish these men or to keep them off the streets for the public’s safety. Although I concede that not all the offenders committed the same offences, the sentences do look a bit ‘off’. One was convicted of rape and the others for sexual assault, one defendant got five and a half years and the rest four and a half years. These sentences, for a sexual assault of this type, look overly lenient. This was not a lower level assault such as groping a woman on a crowded bus carried out on impulse, this was an ongoing, planned and violent enslavement of a young girl. These offenders should have got much longer than they got.

The ringleader of this gang of perverted and dangerous Muslim sex offenders was given eight years after being convicted of rape and three counts of indecent assault. He was described by the judge as a very dangerous man which begs the question why did not this judge give this savage and indeed the rest of this gang, much longer inside?

I see nothing in what these offenders have been convicted of that could possibly justify such piss poor and insulting sentences. They did not plead guilty, which would have spared the victim of having to give evidence in a trial and which would have attracted a sentencing discount. The nature of the offences and the choice of victim should all have contributed to the sentences being longer than they were. The elements of planning and deliberation by these offenders and the fact that some have not shown any remorse for what they’ve done, should all, in my view have been seen as aggravating factors.

I would have thought that the minimum starting point for a sensible sentence for the ringleader convicted of rape, should have been ten years or, even better, life because of the aggravating factors in this case. As for the others convicted of sexual assault, because of the age of the victim, the brutal way that she was treated then the minimum starting point here should have been seven or eight years.

What is particularly galling about this case is that although the new Government has promised that it will stop the early release of violent and terrorist prisoners, these new rules might not apply in this case. Because these savages were sentenced under the current rules, there is the strong possibility that they may be in future entitled to early release under the current rules, let’s hope that is not the case. Under the current system all of these savages could, if they behave themselves in prison and make the right rehab noises to prison and probation staff, be released after only 50% of their sentence was served. This would mean that the rapist ringleader of this gang, a man known to be dangerous, could be back on the streets in four years or so. The others would be out in two and a half years approximately. This is neither long enough to punish this appalling crime nor is it long enough to protect the public.

When you look at the sentencing guidelines for rape, you will see that some of what the leader of this gang of savages put this young girl through should have attracted a much higher sentence. Going by the guidelines the degree of harm caused to this young girl and the culpability of the convicted rapists should have seen this savage gaoled for at least twelve years. As for those in this gang convicted of indecent assault, the sentencing guidelines look as if it would have been quite possible to imprison them for seven years. The question we should ask is why have this gang not been given such sentences? The aggravating factors in this case both for the rapist and those convicted of indecent assault should have led to much longer sentences than they did.

Because of the failure to plead guilty, the type of offences, the choice of victim and the lack of remorse from the convicted I fail to see any mitigating factors that could be considered in this case and which would warrant such relatively short sentences. Even if these savage sex offenders served the entirety of their sentences they would still be back on the streets and still dangerous in less than ten years. These sex offenders are not being sufficiently punished and the public is not being sufficiently protected. This is not a situation that anybody should find acceptable.