Fortunately for victims of assault, you're wrong.
Barbara Ellen on "female on male" violence
- Thread starter Ld222
- Start date
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
well that's a comprehensive reply, thanks
Favelado
J'adore South Shore
You're saying that because he hasn't posted on the subject of male on female violence in the past, this pre-emptively damages his case here. I think that sets an extremely weird precedent if we accept it. That's my point. It's not a tacit backing of his position.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Every time I read that instances of different sorts of crimes are falling, I always check the data, and what's clear is that reports of instances of crime are falling.
BTW, engine fumes don't have the necessary "send you doolally" component anymore. Haven't had for ages. It's getting so the only way you can get a lead fix nowadays is to go to a third-world country.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
He's not pestering you. He asking (given that you posted a thread mentioning violence in the title) what you believe "violence" to be.
The fact that you're unwilling or unable to actually define your term is the problem, not his repetition of his enquiry.
Favelado
J'adore South Shore
BTW, engine fumes don't have the necessary "send you doolally" component anymore. Haven't had for ages. It's getting so the only way you can get a lead fix nowadays is to go to a third-world country.
That theory has as much chance of being a spurious correlation as it does of being true. You know the price of bread in the UK and Venice's water levels show a very strong link too historically right?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
But this is the entire point. Tossers like this bloke, getting furious about an article solely because it is about women not behaving how he thinks they should. They never say anything about male violence there was another such arsehole in the 'Guardian' thread).
Of course that doesnt prove anything about this silly little boy, but it is telling.
"Both in the common law and under statute, the actus reus of a common assault is committed when one person causes another to apprehend or fear that force is about to be used to cause some degree of personal contact and possible injury.
A battery is committed when the threatened force actually results in contact to the other and that contact was caused either intentionally or recklessly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault
Comprehensive enough?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
the correlation between the fall in cinema attendance and the rise in number of fridges in the home is actually closer than between the fall in cinema audiences and the rise in number of televisions in the home. Therefore people only went to the cinema to buy ice cream
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
aah wiki, who could ever argue with a wiki entry?
I strongly dispute, Your Honour, that Mr Jay-Z, in the presence of his bodyguard, had any fear of possible injury.
Try this then...
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#a07
Maybe the CPS don't know the law either? Maybe they copy/pasted it off a wiki?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I refer the rather silly gentleman to my previous answer
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Put the spliff down and try reading without skipping any words out.Fixed that for you...
"causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force."
swap immediate infliction of unlawful force for injury,and you're home.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
you're gonna be here a long time if you're going through all his very very silly postsStop trying to confuse the OP with your pesky facts!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It physically isn't the same, if we take the average size and weight of comparably-aged males and females of equal pugilistic skill. That's physiologically-undeniable - all other things being equal a man's blow will cause more harm and damage than an equivalent woman's blow.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I kept getting confused with the MRA acronym.
Then I worked out that "Mens' Rights Activist" and "Mechanically-Recovered Arsehole" are semiotically identical.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That's what happens when your initial thesis proceeds from a false premise.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Unfortunately, it's impossible, given the construction of their "argument" (such as it is) around an assumed victimhood.
You're not very good at this comprehension thing, are you?
Perhaps a dictionary might help?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
once again, you are so good at arguing that you dont even have to make a point! gosh, you're good
I made my point and threw in a little bit of text from the CPS to back it up. Your inability to comprehend the legal definition of an assault doesn't mean it wasn't an assault.
Next time you see a copper, set about him/her the same way she did in the video and see whether or not you're right.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
you quickly googled summat, yes. And I replied. You have yet to tell me why you disagree with my reply. And then you have the cheek to tell me there's summat wrong with my comprehension!
Physician, heal thyself
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
we can push it to thirty, easy10 pages because someone cannot read an article in the Guardian?
Errr... because it's wrong?
An inability to comprehend suggests there is 'summat wrong' with your comprehension.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
as I said to the idiot LD222, repeating yourself doesnt make something true.Errr... because it's wrong?
An inability to comprehend suggests there is 'summat wrong' with your comprehension.
I suspect you dont know what 'apprehend' means.
You should probably stop digging before you embarrass yourself further
Similar threads
