OMG! I've just trawled the news reports on this, to see if there was something missing, something else not reported that might possibly explain the judges' ruling in this case (I've found papers often leave significant bits out).

There wasn't. His judgement appears to have been reported accurately.

He is an idiot of the first order, and should be stripped of his role in the legal system.

That is sickening. Both parts.

Holy cow, the law is an ass again... a big, flabby, leaking-out-of-the-bottom of a pair of velour shorts while sloping back from the pub type ass.

Our system of law relies on precedent, unfortunately - and I suspect here the judge was too scared to confront another indication of family breakdown (any background on the kid? not possible, I'd wager) and society's compliance in the Death of the Family (keep the money rolling into the treasury folks, work yourselves dead and put the kids in care while you're doing it)...

I don't envy his position. Do you sentence am under-16 kid to jail knowing that'll finish him off as regards redemption, or do you fall back to the letter of the law and rely on the horribly black-and-white logic of precedent to make ( and justify) your decision for you, thus absolving yourself a little?

Either way he'd be in the dock.

Glad to see a couple of comments from Joe on the role declining society has to play. Does anyone know what the late-era Roman Empire was like to live in before it fell apart?

Eeek.