Scottish Girl gonna' start a revolution!

[WallFlowerActive]

I think you are calling it rather clearly.

And nobody wishes to see real charges for racially aggravated assault with two offensive weapons applied to a 12-year-old.

As that's the kind of thing that can follow you all the way throughout life.

Get her the help she needs, and educate her would be my thinking on the matter also.

If the video was recorded for evidence, why didn’t he call the cops to provided them with the evidence for the cops to take and keep and establish chain of custody.  How did he have a copy to upload during an active investigation?

Again..

The best you have is the guy made it a priority to upload the video and not share it with the cops.  With the guy only calling the cops after he uploaded the video.  Where there is no evidence he actually called the cops.  With all evidence pointing the cops responded because they were told about the video being online.  

Where in the day and age where my phone keeps wanting to edit my photos and videos with AI is a serious chain of evidence custod issue for the video.

[WallFlowerActive]

Please tell us all were you're getting your secret information from that the police were alerted because of a YouTube video??

It’s reported the video was reported because of being online.  You’re the ones that can’t provide any proof who called and when.  Without being able to answer if the video was taken as evidence how it got uploaded by the guy if there was already an active investigation.

its quite clear the video was uploaded by him before any effort was made to notify the law.

[Oldcarpy2]

If the video was recorded for evidence, why didn’t he call the cops to provided them with the evidence for the cops to take and keep and establish chain of custody.  How did he have a copy to upload during an active investigation?

Again..

The best you have is the guy made it a priority to upload the video and not share it with the cops.  With the guy only calling the cops after he uploaded the video.  Where there is no evidence he actually called the cops.  With all evidence pointing the cops responded because they were told about the video being online.  

Where in the day and age where my phone keeps wanting to edit my photos and videos with AI is a serious chain of evidence custod issue for the video.

Then pop over to Bonny Scotland and defend the "heroine", while you're at it, perhaps you could start the "Revolution"?

[Kurokage]

If the video was recorded for evidence, why didn’t he call the cops to provided them with the evidence for the cops to take and keep and establish chain of custody.  How did he have a copy to upload during an active investigation?

Again..

The best you have is the guy made it a priority to upload the video and not share it with the cops.  With the guy only calling the cops after he uploaded the video.  Where there is no evidence he actually called the cops.  With all evidence pointing the cops responded because they were told about the video being online.  

Where in the day and age where my phone keeps wanting to edit my photos and videos with AI is a serious chain of evidence custod issue for the video.

You really are just stuck in some kind of loop!?!?!

Who said anything about him not sharing the video with police? Have you never sent a video over What's App or via E-mail? If a crime is committed in your local area, and you have a door cam' the police ask you to send video!
When the police arrived on scene and spoke with the Bulgarian couple, they would have played the video, and the police would ask for a copy.
Where is the evidence the police only responded because of a YouTube video?

[Kurokage]

It’s reported the video was reported because of being online.  You’re the ones that can’t provide any proof who called and when.  Without being able to answer if the video was taken as evidence how it got uploaded by the guy if there was already an active investigation.

its quite clear the video was uploaded by him before any effort was made to notify the law.

So show your evidence of this?? Again you're just making assumptions here.

[Kurokage]

It’s reported the video was reported because of being online.  You’re the ones that can’t provide any proof who called and when.  Without being able to answer if the video was taken as evidence how it got uploaded by the guy if there was already an active investigation.

its quite clear the video was uploaded by him before any effort was made to notify the law.

This is from the Police Superintendent. (the Chief)

Chief superintendent Nicola Russell, who is responsible for Police Scotland’s Tayside division, issued a statement on Wednesday.
She said: “We are aware of misinformation being shared on social media in relation to an incident where a Bulgarian couple were approached by youths in St Ann Lane, Dundee, on Saturday 23 August 2025.
“A 12-year-old girl has been charged with being in possession of offensive weapons. She will be referred to the relevant authorities and our inquiries are ongoing.

No where does it say the police responded to the incident because of a YouTube video?!?!?!

[WallFlowerActive]

This is from the Police Superintendent. (the Chief)

No where does it say the police responded to the incident because of a YouTube video?!?!?!

It doesn’t say the guy called it in ether.

If the guy was following teenage girls and filming them because he wanted “evidence”, how does the video end up online and not submitted to the law with proper chain of custody.  At best you have a guy following teenage girls to video them to put on YouTube.  With no effort to give the cops the video as a witness.  Where you have no evidence the guy had any intention to call the police.  Where it was reported after the video was online.  Or the video would be part of an investigation, not posted online as a spectacle.  Are cops allowed to put videos on YouTube involving underage offenders.  Do you have proof otherwise. And who actually reported it to the police, when and why?  You make vague assurances to statements with no facts other than it was reported.  

Man.  And some of you keep labeling the young girls Ned’s.  Talk about character assassination.  I’m sure a lot of false allegations were made about UK gentleman.  But I wonder how many charwomen were ignored in their plight because they were third class and he was a gentleman.  From the wrong side of the tracks some assholes in the US would say to minimize a person.  Seems the class system in the UK still survives.  The guy filmed and posted the incident without checking with the law and giving the video to the law first? Like he was a gentleman of old needing to protect the narrative, with no desire of justice.  Oh, he’s a family man.  Where the girls are being labeled Ned’s by a few of you.  Where you think is explains everting while ignoring everything about the girls individually.

Added.  Then the law comes out how dare you question?

[UltraBudgie]

Um, the cops reviewed the CCTV from the grocery store. They didn't base their actions solely on the mobile phone video.

[WallFlowerActive]

Um, the cops reviewed the CCTV from the grocery store. They didn't base their actions solely on the mobile phone video.

Which has what to do with why the guy was following the girls and supposedly videoing them as evidence as I was repeatedly told and how his video ended up online and not with the cops as evidence.

[WallFlowerActive]

Um, the cops reviewed the CCTV from the grocery store. They didn't base their actions solely on the mobile phone video.

You can’t even carry a hatchet for self defense.  Is that false.  So if they girls were actually physically assaulted, they still could be charged for carrying a hatchet for self defense.  Is that a false statement.