Scottish Girl gonna' start a revolution!

[WallFlowerActive]

Calling it how you see it is hardly wrong.

Quote where I said it was right or wrong.

Can you comprehend?


How about working on en environment so young girls aren’t pushed into the emotional equivalent of the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan to protect themselves.  They don’t care about right or wrong when they feel it’s about not being violated or just surviving.

[andy06shake]

So you can be charged for assault even when no actual assault took place? I highly doubt it, surely there is another charge for that? 

you’re not saying anything? You have said a great deal in this thread. 

As for the rest the same can be applied to you. You don’t know the events, background that lead to this incident it’s all assuming. 

All I asked was that was his sister charged with assault for punching one of the girls? If not why not? That’s all I want to know at this point.

It doesn't matter what you might doubt, just what the law says.

And the law says yes you can indeed be charged. 

In the UK, you don't have to actually hit someone to be guilty of assault.

The law defines assault as doing something that causes another person to fear they are about to be attacked.
 
So if you wave a weapon in a threatening or menacing way, that can amount to assault even without physical contact.

Anything i have said is backed by the facts, not feelings.

Can you claim the same?

I know what's been reported and what's taken place, and it doesn't look too good for the little neds as the video evidence clearly shows. 

I can't tell you if the sister was charged or why not.

You would need to take that up with the Police, who would have established the facts before proceeding.

[andy06shake]

Evidently being tough enough in a high crime area not to be taken advantage and more worried about just surviving than right or wrong.

Again, we are back to you not answering questions or knowing your arse from elbow.

You dont know anything about the area in question.

What is acceptable, right or wrong, is defined by our law, same as where you hail from, so......

[andy06shake]

Quote where I said it was right or wrong.

Can you comprehend?


How about working on en environment so young girls aren’t pushed into the emotional equivalent of the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan to protect themselves.  They don’t care about right or wrong when they feel it’s about not being violated or just surviving.

So you think children carrying offensive weapons is right? 

Yes or no? 

I think i comprehend just fine.

Again, im working with the actual facts and law of the land.

You're just telling us all what you think may have happened without any sort of evidence to support your feelings.

You dont know the place, area, or people. 

As to your nuclear bombs comparison. 

What a load of complete and utter drivel. 

Can you say something that actually happened as opposed to how you feel?

[WallFlowerActive]

Don't matter what you might doubt, just what the law says,

From a legal standpoint.

Caring about humanity isn’t dehumanizing two young girls with a slur and ignoring the crapy environment that places them in flight or flight.

So.  These to girls in your words are just Ned’s with no redeeming qualities.  They are just going to be in your view Ned’s for life.

[UltraBudgie]

And they are 12/14 years old, you have them watching movies from 1995, im apt to ponder they dont even know who Christian Slater is, never mind the movie in question. 

omg here i am enjoying this thread, but this is over the line.

it's woody harrelson.

woody harrelson starred in natural born killers.

carry on.

[WallFlowerActive]

Again, we are back to you not answering questions or knowing your arse from elbow.

And what question would that be?  I’m making my thoughts and concerns well known.  It’s in the context of environment.  You’re just blind because you have to serve your optics god and call two young girls neds.  Does that make it better labeling them Ned’s.

[andy06shake]

From a legal standpoint.

Caring about humanity isn’t dehumanizing two young girls with a slur and ignoring the crapy environment that places them in flight or flight.

So.  These to girls in your words are just Ned’s with no redeeming qualities.  They are just going to be in your view Ned’s for life.

Crapy environment, you know nothing about, same as the little girls.

What the perpetrators did hardly displays education, and is indeed what delinquents do, so.....

Unless, of course, that education came from the likes of GB news.

Not my fault you have problems accepting the truth.

Or are attempting to justify the cations of neds. 

Again, let your own kid out to play with an axe and streaky and see how it goes.

My bet is not to well.

[andy06shake]

And what question would that be?  I’m making my thoughts and concerns well known.  It’s in the context of environment.  You’re just blind because you have to serve your optics god and call two young girls neds.  Does that make it better labeling them Ned’s.

I've asked about 3 times now if you would let your own kid out with such weaponry and you have chosen to ignore the question.

What optics do i serve pray tell, and please be specific?  

They are neds you just dont like the facts.

Which i would point out you choose to ignore.

Clown shoes. LoL

[WallFlowerActive]

Crapy environment, you know nothing about, same as the little girls.

Which has what to do with you as an adult?  Labeling two young girls as Ned’s.

Evidently the girls learned if you carry deterrents people think twice about making you a mark and violating you.    That’s petty basic.